Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Canberra on her contribution to the debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013. It demonstrated why we on this side of the parliament value research and understand how important research is to Australia's future. The member for Canberra also highlighted issues around the government's walking away from a commitment to research and the effect that it is having upon her electorate and our future here in Australia. I think that hers was a fine contribution which highlighted every aspect of the legislation we have before us and the concerns that surround it. This bill alters funding for the Australian Research Council by amending the act to alter three-year funding figures and extend funding out to 2016-17. It applies indexation to ARC funding; the ARC bill is an annual indexing bill.

It is important to pause for a moment and look at the role that the ARC plays. It is responsible for administering excellence in research for Australia and aims to identify and promote excellence across the full spectrum of research activities in Australia's higher education institutions. On this side of the House we truly value the role that the ARC plays, and this fact is demonstrated in the contributions to this debate that have been made on this side of the parliament. I have to say that I am rather disappointed that no-one on the other side of this House felt passionate enough to stand up and make a contribution to the debate. It is an important debate; it is about our future, it is about science, and it is about ensuring that we have the proper knowledge and the proper jobs in the future.

What have the coalition delivered in recent times? When they named their ministry, they could not even appoint a minister for science. The CSIRO has been under constant attack by the government since they were elected. There are plans, I believe, to deliver cuts to the CSIRO, and there have already been staffing issues at the CSIRO. The coalition has a really poor record on the research community. It has pandered over the years to the growing voice of the anti-science community. If ever there is an opportunity to take a populist approach as opposed to looking at things objectively—as science does—the government will take it, whereas we in the opposition look at and value the role that science plays in making the future of this nation.

Under the Howard government there was a constant brain drain of our best scientists and best researchers, who were leaving Australia and going overseas because opportunities for research really dried up. We only have to look at the Prime Minister of this nation and his view on climate change, where he totally disregarded all of the advice of the most eminent scientists throughout the world and declared that climate change is 'crap'. When you have somebody heading up a government that has that sort of a view of science—somebody who totally denies that science is worthy of taking note of—there is no wonder that we on this side of the House are very fearful of what this government will do to science and research.

It has also been a view of the government, particularly when they were in opposition, to question the integrity of the Chief Scientist—I think that involved the former member for Indi. She totally disregarded the impact of climate change and she questioned the integrity of the Chief Scientist for defending climate scientists. In excess of 95 per cent of scientists worldwide have demonstrated that climate change is in fact a reality, whilst we had members of the government questioning or denying it. It is good to question, because research is about questioning. But denying and totally disregarding research is not quite so good.

During the Howard government years we had constant, repeated intervention on political grounds from the coalition education minister to block research projects. That once again included research into climate science and controversial social issues. If science or research does not agree with your picture of the world, this government will stop the research from taking place. In my way of thinking research is about knowledge, improving our lives and providing information on which decisions can be based. But, unfortunately, those on the other side of this House do not agree with that.

In opposition prominent coalition members have continued to question the independent recommendations of the Australian Research Council, particularly with respect to research in humanities and social sciences. I do not trust this government when it relates to research. The only research they will allow to take place is research that supports their position. In my way of thinking, research and science are not about validating your belief system or your position. They are about the search for knowledge.

Many fine research projects have been undertaken by the Australian Research Council. I will mention a couple of them. The first concerns Macquarie University's future fellowships. Macquarie University professor Wendy Rogers has a project that investigates and defines the limits of physical diseases to answer questions about when presentation is a disease and when it is simply a risk factor or mild condition. This has the potential to reduce the cost burden associated with over-diagnosis, which is something that I think is worthy of investigation. Prior to entering parliament, I often worked with people who had very similar illnesses or disabilities. They had different responses, which manifested in different ways.

Another very interesting project is being done by the University of New South Wales and being led by chief investigator, Dr Jason Sharples. This project aims to improve the understanding of the physical processes that cause eruptive bushfire behaviour, otherwise known as fire blow-ups. Its expected outcomes include a dynamic fire-spread model framework and the provision of better advice to bushfire authorities concerning fire blow-ups. As a member of the this parliament whose electorate has been hit badly by fires over the last few months, I know how important this research is and how important it is to plan for these events and have in place proper strategies. This is a project the ARC is funding to the amount of $370,000 over three years. It is something that should be welcomed by this House.

Another project I will share with the House is one run by the University of Sydney. The chief investigator there is Dr John Evans. He is looking at Indigenous Australians, and the study concentrates on the fact that, despite significant social disadvantage and alarming under-achievement in educational outcomes, Indigenous Australians achieve remarkable success across a range of high-profile sports. This project will identify the social, cultural and pedagogical factors that encourage and enhance achieving excellence at the highest level of sport as a process of learning. Once again it is looking at a different way of providing education.

Those on the other side of this parliament have a very poor record when it comes to anything that relates to the humanities. I really worry about the future of these projects and future projects under a coalition government. It is very sad to note that the coalition plans to cut $103 million from the Australian Research Council over four years. I note that that is not reflected in this bill. But it is another example of the Abbott axe: cut, slash and burn. The cuts are taking place in selective areas. They are taking place and will take place in areas that do not fit in with the coalition's view of life, areas that might well be in the interest of Australia into the future. I am quite concerned about the fact that the coalition does not understand or accept the importance of research. If it deems it fit to rip out $103 million to pay for election promises, I worry about the level of pork-barrelling that will happen under this coalition government.

As I mentioned earlier, the simple fact that there is no minister for science is a concern. Then there is the fact that the government could not even work out which department the ARC should be under. Initially, it was under the industry department. Now it has moved to education. The proposed cuts to take place in the CSIRO show where this government's priorities are, and they are not in the future of Australia or in the search for knowledge. Preparing our country for the future is not a priority for them. Rather, their priority is about delivering along its ideological lines.

I mentioned the humanities earlier. The humanities are very important. I see the humanities as an area of science and of great importance for research. Research in the humanities is just as important in some ways as research in the more factual scientific world. It is really important that we have research in the humanities. It is all about ensuring political stability, property rights, equality before the law, universal literacy, freedom of religion and cultural vibrancy worthy of the society that we live in. If we do not undertake the proper research in the humanities and become a totally utilitarian society, then we as a country will be the losers in the long-term.

The legislation that we have before us is in essence non-controversial. But I must say that the government's approach to science and research is not uncontroversial. This is a government that is hell-bent on cutting in this area. They are cutting $103 million from the Australian Research Council. This is also a government that wants to direct research to fit in with its view of the world.

See this speech in context