Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to make a few brief remarks. Most of our remarks have been conveyed in the Senate during the course of the debate there, but I would like to speak to a number of those amendments, in particular to amendment No. 20.

The Greens are strong supporters of medical research and, in particular, any initiative to increase funding for medical research. That is for a number of reasons that have been well canvassed elsewhere. Medical research in this country is essential to our country's wellbeing. But also, as we consider the role of Australia in the 21st century we have to ask ourselves a pretty important question, which is: what is Australia going to sell to the rest of the world when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging? We will never be able to compete with China or India on wages, and nor should we try. Australia's future will be contingent on having strong export markets in areas like medical research and innovation, where we already have an advantage and where, with the proper government support, we can continue to do so.

It is with some concern that we note that recently there has been a drop-off in the value of the medical research industry and related products in Australia and their exports. We should be taking steps to address that, and boosting funding is one of those ways.

If we had our way, as the Greens, we would argue for greater recurrent funding to medical research through NHMRC and other bodies. The government has proposed the establishment of a fund that will invest money, and then the interest of that will be used for medical research. That is not necessarily how we would have done it, but the initiative, such as it is, is to be welcomed if it results in increased funding for medical research in this country. Certainly, that is something I have seen firsthand in my electorate of Melbourne: the significance of the discoveries from medical research for the Australian community and also for our economy, both locally and internationally.

In that respect there are three areas that the Greens have drawn attention to during this debate. The first concern is that this would ultimately not be additional money but could potentially result in cost-shifting away from the NHMRC and from other areas. Investment in medical research such as is being proposed by the government is only good if it is genuinely additional money. To that extent, I am pleased that amendment (20), which has been accepted and ultimately moved by the government, will ensure that when the review takes place it has a strong eye to looking at ensuring that there has not been cost-shifting away from the NHMRC or from the ARC or, indeed, from the money that flows through higher education grants. It is important to ensure that these funds are genuinely additional funds for medical research.

The second area that we are pleased the minister made some comments about on the record in the Senate concerns investment in tobacco. Because of the way that these funds will be managed, we wanted to ensure that they would not be funds that were invested in tobacco, the proceeds of which would then be used for medical research. That would be something which I think the Australian public would disagree with, and I am pleased that there has been an undertaking that the funds which medical research will be drawn on in this fund will not be invested in tobacco.

The last matter that the minister has put on the record in the Senate and that we were hopeful to get some more progress on—and we will continue to do so over the course of this parliament; I understand the minister has undertaken to look at it—is when this fund results in investment in a company that generates significant private return. If, as a result of this fund, we see the next cochlear implant—and there are many, many developments, particularly in Melbourne and in Australia that might lead us to think that we are on the verge of some pretty important discoveries and therefore some pretty important products to be manufactured—and if it does result in significant private benefit, there should be a mechanism to ensure that some of that private financial benefit generated by a private company finds its way back to the public purse.

Indeed, it would be ideal if the Medical Research Future Fund had a stream of revenue in an analogous way that CSIRO gets a return from the Wi-Fi patents. If this results in significant private benefit, some of that money should find its way back to the MRFF so that we can then invest in more public research. This way it will ensure that it will not just be a private good that benefits but that the public good benefits as well. This is something that we will continue to progress. In the meantime, we will be supporting these amendments because any money that comes new to medical research is to be welcomed and supported. So we will be supporting the amendments in this place.

See this speech in context