Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that in its 2015 budget, the Government has slashed investment in science, research and innovation agencies and programs, including cuts of:

(a) $114 million from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

(b) $75 million from the Australian Research Council (ARC);

(c) $27.5 million from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation;

(d) $80 million from Cooperative Research Centres;

(e) $173.7 million from the Research Training Scheme;

(f) $260 million from the abolition of Commercialisation Australia;

(g) $84 million from ceasing National ICT Australia funding from 2016;

(h) $120 million from Defence Science and Technology Organisation;

  (i) $16.1 million from Geoscience Australia;

(j) $7.8 million from the Australian Institute of Marine Science;

(k) $263 million from Sustainable Research Excellence for universities;

(l) $27 million more from the Cooperative Research Centres program; and

(m) $27 million from its own Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Programme;

(2) calls on the Minister for Education to explain the decision to provide $4 million in funding for the establishment of the Bjorn Lomborg Australian Consensus Centre at the University of Western Australia without any reference to the ARC; and

(3) condemns the Government for the lack of transparency around the decision to fund the research centre, while at the same time making significant funding cuts to science, research and innovation.

Today I want to speak particularly about the Bjorn Lomborg centre and the whole process that led to the federal government investing $4 million in this project. hat came out of the estimates hearing is that this was a process whereby Lomborg's consensus method—the ironically named 'consensus method'—was proved in abstraction, without being attached to any university that would be prepared to use it. So it was not as if UWA entered into an arrangement with Dr Lomborg and that an application of some type went forward to the government. No, somehow or other, through a process that no-one understands, Dr Lomborg managed to get his methodology before some agency—we know it was not the department of education—and to get approval sometime between May and July 2014 for $4 million without any reference to any peer review and without the involvement of the Australian Research Council or anybody else. He was then told to go out and shop it around Australia's universities to see if he could find someone who would use it.

That is an extraordinary process. We are not able to get any information from the government about this. FOI applications come back with absurd price tags. For the last one, the department of education wanted $1,672.50 in order to provide any documentation. We need to know how this happened—how this very controversial methodology, without any university in Australia having embraced it, received funding.

We know that there have been some very serious critiques of this methodology, which involves bringing together a panel and deliberating the different issues and doing cost-benefit analyses. We know that the selected panellists do not represent a broad cross-section of people, they have been heavily weighted towards the politically conservative, and progressive laureates have not been invited. We note that the panel consists entirely of economists and does not incorporate natural science or engage public health specialists or engineers in the process, and 90 per cent of the papers are also prepared by economists.

The very formula of the cost-benefit analysis on which this is based is an entirely inappropriate tool for assessing aid policy because built into it is the notion that the lives of the wealthy have more value than the lives of the poor. So the cost-benefit analysis weighs up the cost and the benefit, but the cost is based on the additional value of your life; and, if you are a very, very poor person in remote Africa, your life is not valued as highly in economic terms as someone from the Western world. So, the poorer you are and the further you are away from resources, the harder it is for the resources to be delivered to you and the lower you will rate. This is an entirely inappropriate technique for assessing foreign aid.

The other thing that is very alarming is that in many cases it appears that the panel's conclusions are at odds with the evidence considered. When Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University looked at the papers that went into the formulation on climate change, he came up with a two to one cost-benefit ratio. The opponents actually supported an emissions scheme, but somehow or other the panel concluded that a global carbon tax was a bad investment. So there is a disconnect between the deliberations and the final panel decision.

The government loves to go about claiming, 'But you did the same thing; you made these same decisions.' But under the Labor government, in each instance that has been quoted, the decisions involved reputable Australian universities. The funding for the Whitlam Institute, a pre-established institute, was to house it at the University of Western Sydney. The Conversation had already been launched, with the CSIRO and three eminent universities in Australia— (Time expired)

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the member's motion is basically a work of fantasy and, when you look at the notice paper, with her motion and the details of the motion, she made a whole list of erroneous things which, funnily enough, have not played a part in her speech at all. I am not quite sure why. But never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It is ironic that this is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, when Napoleon famously said, 'In politics, never retreat, never retract, never admit a mistake.'

The member in her notice paper will be relieved to hear that there have been no funding cuts to science in the 2015 budget. No, there haven't.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The notice paper mentions the 2015 budget. The simple fact is she may have been referring, for instance, to efficiency savings made by the CSIRO of their own volition. She is a member of a party that made a number of structural adjustments, and it started under previous Labor governments. Think about it. The evidence is that Labor's government of over six years was bookended by budget slashes to CSIRO funding. Under the Labor Party in 2008, $63.4 million was cut from CSIRO. In the 2013 budget, there was a so-called efficiency dividend on CSIRO, which once again led to budget cuts. The CSIRO told the ABC Fact Check program that its decision to put a freeze on hiring, and contract renewals, with regard to the 2014 budget, was entirely made by the CSIRO.

The member appears to be out of line with her own party when it comes to Defence spending, for example. She has lauded the United States for using its Department of Defense to put money into research. Good concept, and I happen to agree with the member. The only problem is the Labor government cut Defence spending to the lowest level, measured as a percentage of GDP, since 1937.

The member of the Perth also seems to conflate the issue of science funding with the funding for the Lomborg centre, which she actually admitted in her speech was to do with the economics and cost-benefit analyses. Quite frankly, the reason for closure of that centre—or for the UWA not going ahead with it—was that certain academics raised a stink. Quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for the view expressed by those to shut it down. The so-called academics would have been well placed, in fact, to have been involved in an inquisition in the past. It is an absolute disgrace. The interesting thing is that those who complained about it were social scientists and those in the arts, not hard sciences, not mathematics. Would they have been so concerned if it had been an Al Gore centre? No doubt they would have welcomed that charlatan with open arms.

In UWA Vice-Chancellor Paul Johnson's statement announcing his university's abandonment of the program, he referred to the duty of tertiary institutions to actively encourage an exploration of new ideas, challenge established thinking and pose the difficult 'what if' questions. He cited UWA's commitment to the open exchange of ideas and thought, and fostering the values of openness, honesty, tolerance, fairness, trust and responsibility.

Do you want to see what the Dark Ages were like? Have a look at the group who would fight the Enlightenment. Any view contrary to their belief—and I stress belief—is to be stopped at all costs. My partner, Trudy, was a classic example of that. She did a PhD at UWA and, boy, you should have seen the academics' reaction to her PhD thesis, because—terrible!—it was done from the realist perspective. This is so far from the Tallentyre precis of Voltaire's philosophy—his attitude was: 'I may hate what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.' Universities are heading back to a time when only the prescribed, correct version would be countenanced. Any others were to be defined as heretics. I fear that these academics lack the courage to seek office— (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the member for Perth's motion before the House today. It is correct that these cuts came about in the 2014 budget and were reiterated in 2015 budget. If you look at articles from the time of the 2014 budget, The Canberra Times states:

The country's chief scientist rolled out a sports analogy to make his point recently.

If Australian science was a cricket team we would have a few great players, but a pretty average team, Professor Ian Chubb said …

It goes on to say:

Scientists and researchers are outraged by the Treasurer's cuts to its programs and agencies in the budget handed down three weeks ago.

That is 2014 but restated in 2015.

The CSIRO, ANSTO, the Australian Research Council, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the Co-operative Research Centres and a few other agencies lost $420 million between them. The government did announce a generous Medical Research Future Fund, but many worry it will ignore the role basic sciences play in medical discoveries.

Again the article states:

The cuts to science funding also go against the notion that research will underpin an innovation bonanza that replaces the dividends of the minerals boom.

This is the problem that we have from this government. That we have cut after cut in an area where we need to be putting money.

My electorate is home to two very large universities: the largest in the country, Monash University at Clayton and Deakin University in Burwood. Between them they are home to more that 50,000 on-campus students, with many research facilities spread between these two universities—most particularly at Monash in Clayton. These universities are leading research institutions and have been severely affected by the cuts. How do I know this? Because unemployment in my electorate has gone up for the first time since I have been a member in this place. It has gone up beyond the average.

Within Box Hill and Burwood the average unemployment was about 6.3; currently in those suburbs it is 10.2. What is the largest employment area in this part of the world? It is universities; universities and higher education research. Chisholm is also home to one of CSIRO's largest facilities at the Clayton facility, which employs hundreds of researchers. And yet many people have lost their jobs. I would not put it down just to this government; I would say this has been a culmination over many years, tragically. But the cuts of the previous 2014-2015 budget have absolutely crucified any ability for fantastic work to come out of this area.

CSIRO worked very cooperatively with many businesses in my electorate, particularly the South Eastern Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance, to the benefit of research and to the creation of jobs. When we lose the manufacturing industry through cars in my neck of the woods, where are the jobs going to come from unless they are in research environment and scientific development?

Before the cuts in this year's budget, research by the Parliamentary Library showed that national investment in science and innovation have reached a 25-year low of 0.56 per cent of GDP. The figure will now be dramatically worse. Investment in science innovation is investment in Australia's future. The 2012 study established that basic research investment leads to 30 times more economic growth, while investment in applied research leads to 10 times the economic growth. Without this investment we will not have growth and we will not have jobs.

Labor invested in science and research at adequately-funded universities. In 2015 Deakin University Vice-Chancellor, Jane den Hollander, is faced with a $260 million cut to sustainable research excellence programs, which she has diplomatically called:

… “disappointing” and would harm Australia's ability to compete as a skilled nation in the future. The next generation will be the skilled generation and universities are integral to that, so that's disappointing,” she said. “The over-arching theme for us from the Budget is uncertainty. We have no way of knowing what we will have next year and we have no idea what to say to our students.

The government has created a culture of fear and intimidation for people pursuing research. Very few senior researchers are prepared to make public comment about the government's cuts to research funding. Not because they are happy with the cuts but because they fear retribution being meted out through denial of grant applications.

Tragically, we have seen this in their past; this coalition has form. In the words of a final-year PhD student studying in the area of science at Monash, who asked to remain anonymous: 'Scientists who are seen as engaging in political action are often targeted by media and potentially makes obtaining funding in the future more difficult.' The student goes on to say, 'As a final year PhD student currently looking for work as a researcher I am very concerned about increased funding cuts to national science bodies.' He is an individual who has pursued his career for the last eight years and been very supported by the government which he is very pleased about. 'I am currently looking for post-doc positions overseas. There is currently nothing in Australia. I would love to stay here and use my research for the betterment of Australia in science.' It is in the environmental area, which was slightly lampooned by the previous speaker:

It's a huge privilege to work in a field that you enjoy and there are sacrifices that come with that, but having a lack of job security—such that it would be difficult to buy a house—due to the whims of a government, all while working in an area that can be a benefit to society, it's—

(Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respectfully but categorically want to disagree with this motion. The reason is very simple: it is wrong. There are significant and profound enhancements in environmental science, environmental research and practical applied environmental work in one portfolio alone.

Against that background, let me run through four significant areas that I believe are critical, important and exemplars of the government's investment in practical real world environmental science. First—and this is something about which I am extremely pleased and proud—we have invested $142.5 million in the National Environmental Science Program. This program has been created with a six-year commitment to each of the hubs, and it follows three significant themes: firstly, clean air; secondly, clean land; and, thirdly, clean water.

In terms of the clean air space, we have two particular hubs. The first of those is the national Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub run out of the University of Melbourne with other partners, such as the University of Wollongong, and led by Professor Peter Rayner, with an $8 million allocation. Secondly, within the clean air space, we also have the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, which is to be led by the CSIRO and Dr Helen Cleugh, with $24 million over six years, doing vital work on earth systems, climate science and climate research.

Similarly, the next things we have are the clean land hubs. I am particularly pleased that there is a northern biodiversity hub which is run out of Charles Darwin University, led by Professor Michael Douglas, with an allocation of $24 million over the six years. This is accompanied by something which has been a deep personal project, and that is the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. It is one of the most well-funded of all of the hubs, and it is led by Professor Hugh Possingham of the University of Queensland and Professor David Lindenmayer of the ANU. Their task and their job, with the $30 million allocated to that hub, is to focus on practical projects pioneering recovery of threatened species, whether it is the bettong, the bilby, the quoll or the powerful owl—important iconic species that are at risk if there is no action.

We then follow through to the water hubs. Here, there is a Marine Biodiversity Hub, led by Professor Nic Bax out of the University of Tasmania but working around the country. We move from that to the Tropical Water Quality Hub, which, Madam Deputy Speaker Landry, in your particular seat and others, will play a profound role in helping to pioneer long-term water quality initiatives for the Great Barrier Reef as well as other water quality areas. In particular, this is perhaps the best funded of all of the hubs, with $32 million. It is jointly led by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and it is led by Dr Damien Burrows. This, the threatened species hub and the clean air hub will be particular pioneers in their areas, doing something which has not been done with federal funding previously.

That then brings me to the second major area after the National Environmental Science Program, and that is climate adaptation research. It is fascinating: the previous government defunded Griffith University's National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. We refunded it for $9 million over three years. Were we to have defunded it, the hue and cry would have rung from every rafter. The previous government, under then Prime Minister Rudd, took the money away; we have refunded it. To that, I add the work that we are doing on the Antarctic with a $24 million Antarctic gateway program and a $25 million Antarctic National Research Council program. These are critical projects going forward.

Then last I come to the extraordinary expenditure in science research hardware. Between the Bureau of Meteorology supercomputer, which was proposed by the previous government but unfunded, and the Antarctic icebreaker, which was proposed by the previous government and unfunded, we have found approximately half a billion dollars—$500 million—to fulfil vital national research infrastructure. This is a fundamental commitment to the future. We will hear nothing from the opposition about science research because we are delivering where they failed.

Debate adjourned.