Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013, which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure that the Australian Research Council can continue to support and serve Australia's vibrant research community. Despite the nonsense that we heard from the member for Shortland, this appropriation bill increases the Australia Research Council's funding and caps it in line with inflation to ensure that this government can continue to support thousands of research projects.

I noted that the member for Shortland talked about money being spent on research that validates your belief systems and how we should be spending our research funding on the search for knowledge. I could not agree more. We must remember that our funding for research is limited. Every dollar that is spent is a dollar that comes from taxpayers' pockets. With that, it is worthwhile looking at some of the expenditure that occurred under the previous Labor government. We need to ensure that every cent of this limited funding that we have for research is used to make us a more competitive. That should be the goal. Its goal should be to improve our medical research, to improve our prosperity, to improve our lifestyles. They should be the ultimate goals of our research, because these are taxpayers' dollars that are being spent and every dollar must be spent wisely.

I want to go through a list of some of the expenditure items that occurred under the previous government. A Queensland university secured funding of $197,302 for a project titled, Sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality. You have to ask what medical researcher missed out on funding because of that little research grant. A cool $578,792 was granted for a study of credit instruments in Florentine economic, social and religious life from 1570 to 1790. One of my favourites was the $314,000 for a study to determine if birds are shrinking. Another one was the $145,000 to study sleeping snails. Let us not forget the $85,000 that was given to a researcher for the study of Renaissance garden statues. What about $125,000 for a study titled, 'What is the future of trade unions? How trade unions can contribute to an environmentally sustainable world?' We all know that trade unions are important. But should our Research Council be using taxpayers' money to fund such a program with $125,000? Another one was the nice little $185,000 grant to produce a new autobiography of the Labor opposition leader during the 1950s, H V Evatt. The title was 'How his life resonates with modern challenges in a time of global warming.'

In another example, there was a grant of a cool $65,000 for a study to examine who actually reads Thomas Keneally books. I could fill out that one—I read Thomas Keneally books—but do we really have to provide $60,000 of taxpayers' money for that study? A cool $150,000 went into a study of the impact of locally mined silver to make coins in Athens between the years 550 BC and 480 BC. In another example, a cool $200,000 went to determine what young Australians are learning about sex, love and relationships from the popular media. I would suggest that these are not the type of funding projects that the government should be funding.

Another little one here, which I am sure might be a favourite of many sitting on the opposition side, is a study of Marxism and religion and the relationship between theology and political radicalism—$60,000. Another one here is $180,000 for a study rethinking the history of Soviet Stalinism to provide a sophisticated understanding of the complexities of Stalin's Russia. We know the complexities—obviously, Stalin must have been a good bloke who was misunderstood. We need $180,000 to find that out.

In another example, $210,000 was spent on a study of how early-modern women's writing was produced and circulated. And $196,476 was spent on a study of trade unions in Indonesia to document and analyse unionist strategies for the upcoming Indonesian election. Is this really what the Australian taxpayer should be funding, instead of medical research, instead of research to make our nation more competitive?

This is a little bewdy, too: $164,000 for a study of magical spells and rituals from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD to achieve success in personal relations—a most important expenditure! In another one: $370,000 for a study to find whether physiological plasticity of individuals renders populations resilient to climate change. It goes on: $265,000 for a study to understand the context and purpose of philosophy within higher education in the eastern Roman Empire in the period 300 BC to 500 AD. In another example, $330,000 of taxpayers' money was spent under the previous Labor government to explore the music-cultural identity and related socioeconomic dilemmas of remote South Sea nomads vis-a-vis the Muslim Malays in the industrialising Riau Islands.

Under the previous Labor government $253,000 of taxpayers' money also went to study archaeology in the Central Caucuses. And $444,000 of taxpayers' money was spent to study a history of advertising industry practices in Australia between 1959 and 1989. Isn't that the type of study that would be better funded by the advertising industry than by taxpayers?

Another example is a study of official histories produced by humanists in the courts and chanceries of Renaissance Italy during the 15th century—$116,00 of taxpayers' money at a time the budget is billions in deficit. It goes on: $112,000 of taxpayers' money spent on a study on rural communities in South Australia and how they will adapt to health challenges from climate change. The only problem is that according to our bureau's records the hottest day ever recorded in South Australia was back in January 1960. In another example, $120,000 of taxpayers' money was spent by the Labor government for a study of the life and times of musical artists, bands, managers, recording studios and relevant radio programs since 1945 in Western Australia.

Is this really what governments should be spending taxpayers' money on? Our Australian Research Council is important. The money we spend on research as a nation is vitally important. But we must be directing that spending on goals and achieving outcomes that will improve our nation's competitiveness, improve our national prosperity—especially at a time we are in such deep deficit, and the previous Labor government has left the nation with such a deep debt that we have to pay off.

I am confident that the new education minister will continue with the very good job he is doing and will ensure that the Research Council expenditure, the generous grants that we give under this government, and the increasing amounts of grants that we give, will continue on those grants that are actually improving and increasing our national prosperity. I commend this bill to the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members who participated in this debate. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 allows the ARC to continue to support the highest-quality fundamental and applied research and research training. The importance of the ARC was highlighted in early November when the funding outcomes for five ARC funding schemes were announced. As a result of this, 1,177 new research projects will be undertaken by some of our best and brightest researchers.

To take just a few examples, researchers will work to understand the causes of eruptive bushfires; reduce the misdiagnoses of disease; identify the causes of outbreaks of the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, and ways to manage and protect the Great Barrier Reef; investigate water scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin; work to develop new cancer treatments—and much more.

The ARC Amendment Bill 2013 before us today is essential. The ARC Act is the legislative basis that supports the financial operations of the ARC grants programs, and the ongoing process of the ARC, to fund this high-quality research. There has been some discussion in the media and on social media since this bill was introduced, with many a theory about a reduction in funding. But let me be absolutely clear: there is no reduction in funding. This bill seeks to amend the ARC Act in line with the commitments made by the previous government in the 2013-14 budget. The perceived reduction in funding is due to the Future Fellowships scheme. This scheme was designed by Labor as a terminating program, and that is what is reflected in the 2013-14 budget, and that is what is reflected in this amendment bill today. The coalition government has not removed one dollar of funding from the ARC.

What I will say today is that any delay in passing this bill could have detrimental impact on the payment of all new grants moving forward and therefore the livelihoods of our researchers. We need this research to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. The outcomes of ARC-funded research are highlighted daily in the media. The Herald Sun recently published a story titled 'Mental illness implant hope' about a study led by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, which has allowed researchers to develop a brain implant that they hope will provide a breakthrough in the treatment of the symptoms of mental illness. The implant, a world first, would provide electrical stimulation and deliver drugs directly to the brain. ARC-funded research undertaken at the University of New South Wales has seen the development of new green steel processes that have to date diverted more than 1.6 million waste car tyres from landfill. And ARC-funded research at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research has engineered a protein that exhibits qualities of an antiviral agent against human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV.

Ongoing funding for the ARC is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system and our commitment to strengthen Australia's research workforce. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia, working in our universities and teaching the next generation. However, the ARC is not only supporting quality research and research careers, but also helping the government to measure our research investment and to assure taxpayers that their money is being invested wisely. The ARC's mission is to deliver policies and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and that benefit the community. The outcomes of ARC-funded research deliver cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits to all Australians. It is essential that this bill is passed today to allow the good work of the ARC to continue and to ensure that our researchers have the resources to undertake high-quality research now and in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I have received a message from Her Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, an appropriation for the purpose of this bill.