Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

both of the honourable members at the table are acquainted with her—said last night or the night before, when she was a speaker before Professor Chubb, that her standing there as she was with Professor Ian Chubb and speaking before him was like Al Gore introducing the then President Clinton and saying that he was there as the precursor to Elvis Presley or, in that case, the president of the day. Mary's dream was to be the warm-up act for Ian Chubb, speaking on the general theme of science at the Gippsland campus of Federation University at Churchill. I am a great admirer of Professor Chubb myself and an admirer of his passion for science and the important role that it plays in so many aspects of our daily lives. It is sad that he is retiring at the end of this year, so today's discussion is a good opportunity to take a few moments to pay tribute to Professor Chubb's enormous contribution to every part of our nation. There is hardly a member of this House who has not interfaced with Professor Chubb at some stage on some aspect of health and the social surrounds of health and all its intricate parts. Professor Chubb's speech the other night paralleled the topic of today's debate. Last night or the night before Professor Chubb talked about 'patience capital'. By that he means the investment of patience and time. Some might call it the long road in the long haul. It calls on us to understand that the results of science sometimes take a long time to mature but, in the end, they can reap enormous dividends for the community. One of Professor Chubb's living examples of this goes all the way back to 1971, when President Richard Nixon spearheaded the war against cancer bill. Professor Chubb reminded us of the patience capital when he said that only in the last year or two 19 new cancer drugs have come on the market as a result of the legislation in 1971.

For those two younger members sitting at the front bench today—the member for Aston and the member for Canberra—think of what your age was and where you were in 1971. Think of what you were doing, in 1971, when the American government made this decision and understand the enormity of the dividend from that ambitious investment.

Too often, governments of all persuasions bear criticism for a lack of interest in or lack of support for science. Professor Chubb rightly said that shining a light on the role and rewards of science is a responsibility we all share—that is, government, industry and the education sector. Having said that, it is not all positive. A perfect example, Professor Chubb gave last night, is when John Howard came to office and was very interested and supportive of science. Mr Howard wanted to invest and initiate. Professor Chubb said that in response to this he set off to gather the support of 21 captains of industry who could co-sign a letter commending Howard's interest and encouraging him to pursue it.

It was not a letter to 'have a go' at Howard, in any way. On the contrary; it was a letter designed to have Australia's business leaders say to the government of the day, 'We stand with you on this. We will work with you on this. We will go with you.' Professor Chubb said he could only get one person to sign the letter. The moral of the story is that science and its proliferation is everyone's responsibility—even those, like me, who are not tertiary educated. It is about government, it is about industry and it is about community. That is patience capital, and it reaps due rewards for our nation.

There have been some difficult issues in this parliament on embryonic stem-cell research and this has been an enormous struggle for many members in this place. In that address, I said to the House that I came from a conservative position but I had a staff member who was determined to take me down a different path and show me what benefits and rewards could be reaped. I was finally convinced when I sat with a professor, a surgeon, in this area of immune technology. He said:

Mr Broadbent, I want you to do me out of a job. The research and capacity that this legislation will enable may do me out of a job. I am the person who looks after the drugs and enables the transplants for those who have diabetes. I enable that part we put into their body not to be attacked by the immune system.

He put it in my language. That changed my whole approach.

Since that great debate—and the slippery slide we went through over embryonic stem-cell research—the debate has moved on. There was meant to be a re-inquiry about it three years later and then five years later. Those who then, I believe, opposed that issue are now great proponents of stem-cell research and the benefits it is providing to this generation and will provide to the next generation and the one after that. Here we are, the product, in this place, in this parliament. We were able to take it through the parliament and get that legislation in place. It allowed the opportunity for our scientists and those amazing people who work around them and with them to make a radical difference to the lives of people throughout this nation and probably the world.

The legislation today allows for the fact that we need to, whether it be in the natural process of gene technology—which I remind everybody our farmers have been doing for yonks, forever. They have been improving their breeding stock, improving our wheat stocks, grain stocks and sugar stocks, and all of those issues. They have been doing that. That is what our parents and grandparents did. Our scientists today are born with the knowledge, training, money and skills to enhance what our parents and grandparents were already doing—to pick the best lamb, to pick the best bull, to pick the best cow, to get the greater milk output. Now we are using science to do that.

Exactly that process—the science and education that have come into agriculture and all facets of my electorate—is being celebrated in every area of activity by the VFF and the National Farmers Federation. Everybody understands how important it is for this science to be implemented for the betterment of our rural communities. What will they then do? We are already feeding the world. We can feed the world some more. We can feed the rest of South-East Asia and have an input into that.

The worst part about this is that I know there are at least five members—I am looking at—who could speak on this subject for an hour without stopping and on how important the new technologies are for rural communities across this nation and for every other aspect of our lives and the benefits they give.

You are about to cut me off, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. That is a great disappointment to me, because I was thoroughly enjoying what I was saying to you. I understand that you will have time limits in this place but one thing we do not have a time limit on his brilliance. We do not have a time limit on the people who are able to achieve for this nation in a way that members of this House can never do. And that is the science community. Professor Ian Chubb, we pay tribute to you and all that you have done and every opportunity that you have taken—even the instructions you gave me about my personal life, which I was not prepared to accept at the time.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context