Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to address my remarks to schedule 2 of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2017, which sets out the indexation funding caps for the Australian Research Council. The government has tried to use this updating of caps as an opportunity to boast about its commitment to research. It is a hollow boast at best. As I have said for some time now, this is a government that has substantially reduced the amount of money that is available for science, research and innovation. In fact, about $3 billion has been taken from science, research and innovation programs, and that includes $75 million from the ARC budget in the 2014 budget. I have argued that this budget ripped some $900 million specifically from science and research programs, not just $75 million from the ARC, $115 million from CSIRO; $27 million from ANSTO; $7.8 million from the marine institute; $16 million from Geoscience; $10 million from the Bureau of Meteorology; $120 million from the Defence Science and Technology Group; and $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which is a 10 per cent cut.

Initially we saw a government that did not even appoint a science minister. Now, some four years after this government came to office, we have an opportunity to look at the detail of what the consequences of those reductions have been. We know that in terms of the science agencies there are 1,700 fewer scientists employed in the government agencies. We also know that, when we look at the science, research and innovation tables, in real terms the total government spend is now down by $453 million. That is a real figure, not a notional one. The ARC itself has lost $187 million between 2013-14 and 2016-17.

This is a proposition which means that there is less money available for research, from a government that claims it is suddenly interested in research, a government that has had monumental failure after monumental failure in terms of the research agenda of this country—a government that cannot even announce the appointment of the new CEO for the ARC. There is no doubt that that the acting CEO, Leanne Harvey, is performing in an admirable way. She is a woman who I have worked with directly and I have enormous regard for, but it has been 10 months since the former CEO announced that he was going. It has been a month since the minister, Senator Birmingham, told the estimates committee that an announcement was imminent. We know how important the research sector is and how important it is to have a CEO who has the confidence of the sector, and that means that they need to be a permanent appointment. We need to have a CEO with specialist knowledge and experience that the sector acknowledges will be there on an ongoing basis.

What we have seen, though, in this government's approach to research, is that it has to be research for a commercial basis. The emphasis now is on turning a quick quid. This is an undermining of basic research; an undermining of the fundamental principles of research integrity; an undermining of the principles of peer review; an undermining of what we have come to understand as the important questions that come to the role of the research community in assisting this parliament, and all governments, to face up to the big questions that are confronting this society. What we have seen is a government that says, 'What we need to do now is have a much higher emphasis on commercialisation.'

We have gone from a situation where we had no science minister at all, for much of the first term of the government, to a point where we now have had three science ministers in 12 months. Suddenly, the latest science minister has rediscovered climate change and rediscovered the importance of expert advice. That comes just a month after claiming that One Nation are a more knowledgeable and a more sophisticated operation, despite their attitudes and a whole range of fundamentally unscientific approaches to life, including that on vaccinations.

The ARC has developed a new impact and engagement model to research funding. These are particularly concerning, given the experience we have seen in the United Kingdom. The Stern review and the United Kingdom's Research Excellence Framework found that these types of exercises have imposed immense costs on our universities. A review of the Research Excellence Framework in the United Kingdom found that the estimated cost of running the so-called impact studies in 2014 was 246 million pounds, and 212 million pounds were borne by the higher education community in the process of preparing their submissions alone, for their so-called impact study.

The utility of the impact assessments, exercises like that undertaken in the United Kingdom, has been heavily criticised. Yet the government in Australia is ploughing on. Despite all the rhetoric about the importance of the science and the so-called platitudinous statements that we saw last week from the government, we never actually understood the implications of the relationship between basic and pure scientific research and the need to have commercialisation in a proper context.

Of course, without proper funding and without proper support for basic research, we will not have the capacity to ensure that we have the research that can be commercialised in later times. We see this particularly with the Education Investment Fund, which the government has said that it wants to abolish. We saw in the last parliament the attempt to use the investment fund for the privatisation of roads. We are fortunate that this Senate said that the asset recycling program was not a proper use for the investment funds, which were put aside for education funding, for research funding and for TAFE funding. A proposition that I moved was accepted by the Senate, and the proposals were rejected.

The government then went around the university sector and said, 'By executive fiat we will transfer monies to disabilities.' They said so in December, in the MYEFO statements, claiming that that had been done. Of course, it could not be done, because they needed to have a legislative instrument. You cannot willy-nilly take away these designated funds in the manner in which the government was proposing to do. This was in the context where the government itself had established a series of reviews into the importance of research funding. There was the Higher Education Infrastructure Working Group, which reported in 2015. It was by Bradley and co. There was the Research Infrastructure Review final report by Clark and co. that reported in September 2015. There was the draft National Research Infrastructure Roadmap, which reported in 2016. It had consultations over the Christmas period this year and through to 2017. No money was attached to it, of course.

In this same context, where these issues were developed and demonstrated to be needed in various reviews that the government had initiated, no money was actually put aside. But the very money that was available through the investment fund was to be taken away, to be used first for the privatisation program and now, it is said, for the disability program and for paying down debt. It was to be done by executive fiat. That has been demonstrated to be completely incorrect, because as we discovered in January—the finance department acknowledged in the estimates hearing—it could not be done without legislative approval.

It poses a much more fundamental question than the government's sleight of hand. A question was posed by the Bradley review:

The question needs to be asked why government no longer believes that it has any role to play in this form of nation building.

The review is specifically referring to the question of funding of research infrastructure. The fundamental proposition of research infrastructure at this time is that the government has sought to constantly seek someone else to undertake its responsibilities. It has set up a whole series of reviews. It has sought to delay any commitment. Essentially, it has failed to deal with its responsibilities by ignoring the need to fund a long-term research infrastructure plan for the country. There is no doubt there is a legitimate, an urgent and very much a real need to fund our research infrastructure so that we can develop the new knowledge, the new technologies and the new jobs to keep us an advanced industrial society. We have had highly qualified expert panels established, but the situation continues to deteriorate. The government thinks that it is enough to set up yet another review. This is a government that loves reviews: it means it can avoid having to make a decision.

We have emerging a funding cliff, a funding uncertainty in our universities and our public research agencies, while all the time a $3.7 billion fund is sitting on the government's book and not being used. It is collecting basic interest, and that is all. It is a farce. The fund was established—part of the Future Fund arrangements—precisely for this purpose. The uncommitted funds of $3.7 billion are exactly the sum that the expert panel identifies as the shortfall that the country needs for research funding at the moment. The Clark review makes the point that the government has this responsibility and has failed to fulfil its obligations in that regard. The government has set up a road map with no commitment to fund any arrangements under it. It is an exercise in fantasy to ask people, 'What would you like to do?' but not provide the money to actually do it. So an urgent task is acknowledged by the government but no provision is made to fund it.

The Clark review, for instance, acknowledges that the nation needs advanced research. The conduct of advanced research requires research infrastructure. The more sophisticated the infrastructure the greater the potential for breakthrough research. In the case of cutting edge landmark facilities, the scale of resources required, the uncertainty of commercial payoff and the long lead time for results all mitigate against individual businesses making the investment. Research infrastructure investment must be made collectively, typically by the nation or groups of nations, for the use of bona fide researchers. And so it goes on. The Clark review says:

Research generates knowledge, the use of which benefits society and opens up new opportunities for business.

The ability to sustain a competitive edge in the generation of new knowledge, and of new scientific knowledge in particular, is at the core of the strategic plans of many nations as they position themselves for growth in a highly competitive global economy. Some countries started decades ago …

…   …   …

In contrast, the Australian research system is feeling the pressure of the chronic underfunding of key elements … countries investing in R&D are making the right choice. At the national level, multi-factor productivity growth is positively correlated to expenditure on R&D. The reverse holds true for countries with low levels of R&D expenditure.

So says the Clark review on the very first page of its report. It goes on:

To reach and maintain the necessary standards, we need the best researchers and they need quality research infrastructure.

A number of leading economies have recognised that quality research supported by quality infrastructure leads to jobs, growth and a more competitive economy.

That is on page 5.

Research infrastructure is an engine of economic growth and productivity. There are numerous examples of innovation and productivity outcomes from research infrastructure internationally and in Australia …

That is from page 6. This an argument that is not only internal to Australia but also related to our place in the global research effort, in which we are intimately engaged. The report says:

In a world in which research is increasingly undertaken across large teams of investigators from multiple countries, Australia will need to be a contributor to that effort to draw benefit. If we are to prosper as a strong but relatively small participant in the global wellspring of ideas and innovation, our contribution must be at the high standards required to earn us the connections that we need.

And so it goes on.

The reviews that the government established then tried to suppress demonstrate that there is an urgent need for action, which the government has yet to provide any support for. What we saw, of course, is that even the incoming Liberal government's 2014 National Commission of Audit endorsed the view about the importance of research infrastructure and the Commonwealth's role in funding it.

Quality research infrastructure is a critical component of Australia’s research and development system and, since 2001, the Commonwealth Government has provided a series of funding programmes for large-scale research infrastructure.

And it recommended:

… the Government take a more strategic, whole of government approach to the funding of research and development, including by:

… … …

… committing to ongoing funding for critical research infrastructure in Australia, informed by a reassessment of existing research infrastructure provision and requirements …

So it is not just people in the ARC. It is not just the people in government agencies. It is the government's own ideologically driven groups that are arguing this case. It is not just people on the left of politics that say that the future of the nation depends upon the capacity to actually build this capacity. It is right across the board, except within this cabinet. What we have is a failure of this government to recognise its national responsibility to the future prosperity of our nation. What we have in this government is a failure to come to terms with what it means to build prosperity and to build opportunities for Australians.

The minister made the point last week that we have to rely upon experts and we have to rely upon the importance of scientific research. Well, where does that come from? It does not come from reducing 1,700 scientists and by reducing the government's research budget. It does not come from the reduction in the ARC's funding by $187 million in real terms since this government came to office. It does not come from playing to the 'sophisticated' One Nation approach on climate change or on vaccinations, or playing footsies with those philistines that take the view that somehow or another all research must be moved immediately to make a financial return. Just imagine what we would do if we took that attitude towards the development of wi-fi? Wi-fi was one of the most transitional, most effective technologies this country and the world has seen. It is probably the hallmark technology of our age. It was developed as a result of research into examinations in astronomy of black holes. No-one, when they started on that project, would have said, 'We're going to create wi-fi out of this.' But, that is the type of exchange that is required. It happens so often in the research area.

The capacity that we have to develop, through major research infrastructure, new knowledge, new technologies, new jobs and new industries is, I think, of overwhelming importance to the future of the nation. Yet this is a government that has failed to provide the necessary wherewithal to allow our researchers to make their contribution to the future of this nation's prosperity. What we have is a government that has pandered to the anti-scientific lobby within our political system. This is a government that has failed to fulfil its obligations to modernity. This is a government that has shown a contempt for science. The recent rhetorical discovery, without the financial support necessary, means that there will be a continuation of the policies which have so undermined our scientific community in this country.