Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is commonplace to hear in Australia that Australia has very good research, particularly in the science and technology field. I think the Treasurer referred to that last night either in his budget speech or in comments afterwards. But the fact is that this government has really not paid due recognition to encouraging and promoting this quality. My colleagues Senator Carr, for the Labor Party, and Senator Stott Despoja, for the Democrats, have gone into some of the detail of the evaluative framework contained in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. I want to briefly talk a bit more about research and the way this Liberal government has dropped the ball on research over the past 10 years.

There is discussion in the bill about high-quality, high-impact research and its importance, and the recent Productivity Commission report emphasises the necessity of having high-quality, high-impact research and the effect of that on our country’s economy and productivity. People also paid lip-service to the fact that the value of research may not be immediately apparent and that it may be evident some way down the track. Indeed, when I went through university a lot of the work being done in the faculty of biochemistry at the University of Adelaide was seen to be leading-edge research that did not have any particular impact. But the work on cell walls and other biochemical aspects has had a very evident impact, and a lot of the biotechnology work that is producing profits now is predicated on that. The fact is that, over the past 10 years, this Liberal government, as has been stated by my colleagues, has neglected research. It has neglected funding for research and has neglected the universities and other structures in which research has been carried out. That has had a big impact on the quality, the amount of research and the type of research within those institutions.

Indeed, you could argue that the Liberal government, despite paying lip-service to the quality of Australian research, have actually brought a lot of research into disrepute by their mocking of it—and I am talking particularly of the former Minister for Education, Science and Training Dr Brendan Nelson. This was highlighted by Professor Peter Hoj when he left the Australian Research Council recently. In speaking about his time in the Research Council, which began in 2004, he said that, within months of his being in the Australian Research Council, Dr Nelson vetoed three projects that the ARC board had recommended for funding. He went on to say that Dr Nelson vetoed another seven the following year, created an outrage when he appointed three lay members to the ARC board and then finally abolished the board. In the process, Dr Nelson and others of his philosophy cast a lot of doubt on the quality of the research that was being done in Australia, taking out individual projects and project titles and mocking them and the quality of research that was coming out of a number of institutions—and this was done by the minister for higher education. At the same time, funding was cut and, subsequently, the grants were tied to government and workplace reforms within universities. Ideological obsessions, such as workplace reforms, have replaced policy ideas within this government. This government lacks forward thinking, it lacks policy ideas and it puts in place ideological obsessions that skew the kind of work and research that is being done by universities, at a time when it has become more important than ever that we get good quality research coming out of our institutions.

I will concentrate on the scientific area because that is my particular area, but there is good research coming out in the arts and humanities and there are good reasons that that research should continue. In the area of scientific research it is extraordinarily important that we get good quality and good value out of the research. A lot of our manufacturing is being taken over in other countries where labour is cheaper and regulation is less severe, and it is very important, as many have noted, that this country develops a much more cerebral type industry, where we rely on our ability to innovate, to produce technological change and to sell our ideas as our exports rather than particular goods. There has been talk about the ‘clever country’ and the export of our ideas—all of which has a lot of value—but, in order for us to achieve that, we must come up with those ideas and the pure research and then come up with the ability to translate those ideas into commercial reality or at least to prototypes.

That second area is where the government has most signally failed. This is particularly so in relation to climate change. We talk about the necessity to tackle climate change on the basis of scientific fact, but a lot of the science on how we should address climate change has not been properly supported or funded by this government. Not only do we have to ask ourselves whether the research that is being done is being approached by this government in a stepped and strategic way but we also have to look at the implementation of that scientific research. I have friends who work in the hydrogeological area, which plays a fundamental role in how we deal with climate change. Funding to that area is cut all the time simply because it is an implementation area. It does not get the government great kudos if the hydrogeological work is done, and the recommendations are not put forward. It is only when we reach crisis point that the need for that kind of work is evident—and we are now rapidly reaching that crisis point.

The government is in a catch-up phase, because it has not looked to the future for its policy over the last 10 years. It has not recognised climate change and it has not recognised the scientific research and the value that it has. In this budget and through other measures, the government is looking at catching up. Before we get too excited about the value of what is contained in the current budget, we should remember those last 10 years of reduced funding, the mocking of research, the blocking of research and the underchampioning of research in areas of scientific and technological advances. It has been 10 years of mismanagement—and, where it has not been mismanagement, it has been 10 years of neglect.

Last night on one of the television programs, Mr Laurie Oakes asked the Treasurer where the idea of the endowment funding came from. It was a question that the Treasurer avoided, but it is a very interesting question because it is a reasonable idea. I will not discuss the implementation or what its effect will be; I will leave that to further discussion of exactly what is involved there. But at least it does show some vision and innovation, and that has been severely lacking under previous ministers for education in the Liberal government. It is an interesting question. Would it have come from the current Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, who has so far shown no signs of vision or innovation in this education budget, or would it have come from other areas? I do not know, but what we need in education—higher education in particular—is much more vision and innovation. We need to recognise that if Australia is to be the country that we want it to be then we have to support good quality, high-impact research at our universities.

The fact that funding for education in Australia has lagged behind other countries illustrates that this government does not have a true commitment to Australia as a country that relies on the brain power, innovation and ability to adapt that would take us further into the next century—past the mining boom and into a future where everyone in our country can take advantage of higher education and, to the best of their ability, use their talents in research within a framework which is properly measured and properly supported by the government. It is a fact that we do not have in this country the level of private endowment that other countries might have, but that is all the more reason why the Australian government needs to pay proper attention to the way in which it develops research institutions in this country and to the way research is valued in this country.