Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): Today I want to speak about what I think is a great adornment to Canberra and also our nation, and that is the John Curtin School of Medical Research. The school was founded in 1948 on the initiative of Howard Florey, who won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the creation of penicillin. Named after the former Prime Minister John Curtin, the school was established following Florey's vision for an Australian based world class medical research school. One of the driving factors in Florey's desire to see a medical research school in Australia was the reality that many of Australia's most talented scientists and researchers were being lost to overseas institutions.

The idea of a national medical research school was incorporated into The Australian National University Act 1946, and between 1948 and 1951 the first researchers were recruited. The first four heads of department to be appointed were Hugh Ennor, as Professor of Biochemistry, in August 1948; Adrien Albert, as Professor of Medical Chemistry, in January 1949; Frank Fenner, as Professor of Microbiology, in July 1949; and John Eccles, as Professor of Physiology, in December 1951. There was, however, no building or laboratory facilities in Canberra to house this new medical research school. Florey and the team of heads of department met regularly in Canberra to lobby the government for funding and develop plans for a building, but the process was a long and difficult one as Australia emerged from the Second World War.

Nonetheless, researchers were already working away at making some of the great discoveries of medical science. They used facilities in far-flung places such as Melbourne, Dunedin, London and Oxford to do work on, among other things, the influenza virus, tuberculosis and anaemia. It was not until 1952 that temporary buildings were constructed and the first experiments and studies were done here in Canberra. Finally, on 27 March 1958, 10 years after the school was established, the permanent home of the John Curtin School of Medical Research was opened in Canberra by Sir Howard Florey, with Prime Minister Robert Menzies in attendance.

Since then, the school has been a world leader in medical research. At present, there are over 300 members of the John Curtin School of Medical Research, including staff, students and visitors. It has an operating income of $39.8 million. The John Curtin school can lay claim to four Nobel Prize winners: Sir John Eccles, in 1963, for his research on neuroscience; Peter Doherty and Rolf Zinkernagel, in 1996, for their work on immunology; and, of course, Howard Florey, who had already won his Nobel Prize by the time he came to help launch the school. One of the original heads of department, Professor Frank Fenner, was the chairman of the Global Commission for the certification of smallpox eradication in 1977. More recently, Professor Carola Vinuesa was named Australian Life Scientist of the Year in 2008, and Professor Chris Goodnow was awarded the prestigious GlaxoSmithKline Award for Research Excellence and was elected to the US National Academy of Science in 2013.

The John Curtin School has undertaken medical research on a whole range of important medical issues. The school currently has five departments: the Eccles Institute of Neuroscience, headed by Professor Greg Stuart; the Immunology Department, headed by Professor Chris Goodnow; the Pathogens and Immunity Department, headed by Professor Carola Vinuesa; the Genome Biology Department, headed by Professor David Tremethick; and the Molecular Bioscience Department, headed by Professor Angela Dulhunty. Their research aims to understand and provide novel insights into diseases including cancer, auto-immune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, and neurological conditions such as epilepsy and vision impairment

The researchers at the John Curtin School of Medical Research are doing real work that will have a real effect on people's lives. For example, a research team led by Associate Professor Mauricio Arcos Burgos, which has been doing work on the genetic component on ADHD, has discovered the role of a particular gene that indicates susceptibility to ADHD and how a patient may respond to particular medications. The results of this research could help identify people who may be diagnosed with ADHD and also help doctors understand what medications different patients will respond to. Researchers are also doing work on cancer treatment. Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in Australia and it is important that we continue to strive for treatments that help manage the disease and possible cures. At the John Curtin School, researchers led by Dr Anneke Blackburn are working on treatments with less toxicity than current cancer treatments. It is hoped particular drugs will be able to slow the growth of cancer, meaning patients need less toxic treatment, which will lead to better health outcomes.

Another significant area of research is heart disease and, in particular, hypertension—one of the leading risk factors for heart disease in the world. Hypertension is a complex condition and no single drug is effective with all patients. Professor Caryl Hill has led research in exploring the molecular mechanisms of high blood pressure that can lead to hypertension. Dr Hill hopes to develop a new drug that targets certain previously untreated molecular processes to deal with hypertension.

We are all aware of the serious HIV and AIDS problem around the world. Researchers here in Canberra, led by Dr Charani Ranasinghe, are working on a vaccine that will deal with the HIV virus at the molecular level. This research is in its early stages but success could mean millions of lives saved around the world. These are just a few examples—there are many more—and all of these research projects will result in genuine health outcomes for people not just in Australia but around the world.

I had the privilege of visiting the John Curtin School of Medical Research last month and got a glimpse of the world-leading work these scientists are doing. I met the current Director, Professor Chris Parish, and learnt about how they are taking real steps to make sure that we can continue to lead healthy and productive lives. As they look to the future, the John Curtin School of Medical Research has two great initiatives in the pipeline. As a legacy of Canberra's centenary last year, the school has established a Chair of Cancer Research that will further expand and develop the already strong work the school is doing in cancer research. That position will be filled by the end of this year. The school is also launching a new Centre for Personalised Immunology that will bring together some of Australia's top researchers and clinicians to explore improvements in diagnosis and individual treatment of patients with immunological diseases.

However, it is not all good news for the John Curtin School of Medical Research. They, like many medical research facilities around Australia, face an ongoing uphill battle to keep up with the increased costs of research and the real issue of new young researchers being lured overseas looking for more funding to find the treatments and cures of the future. This is the same problem Howard Florey identified when the John Curtin School of Medical Research was just an idea. That is one of the reasons that the government's $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund is so important for the future of our nation. The government understands that healthcare costs are not limited to what a patient pays or does not pay at the doctor or at the pharmacy. Healthcare costs are also affected by preventing and curing diseases and coming up with more effective treatments for medical conditions. To make that happen, we need to fund institutions like the John Curtin School of Medical Research and others around the nation.

In the coming decades, Australia faces many challenges with an ageing population and the rising cost of chronic illness. Investing in medical research will help us deal with those challenges. Australia-wide, we have a health and medical research sector worth around $6 billion that employs 22,000 people, with a further 12½ thousand postgraduate students engaged in research. This is a $20 billion investment into that research sector and into the health system. We will draw on the earnings initially in 2015-16 to provide $20 million a year to supplement the almost $800 million a year that we spend on medical research today, ramping up to a billion dollars by 2022-23, which will be a considerable health and economic benefit to Australia.

For over 60 years, the John Curtin School of Medical Research has been proof that investment in medical research can and will deliver on real-world health outcomes. When it comes to the legacy of the school, it is not just the prizes we should consider; it is the countless lives that have been saved, and will be saved, due to the work being done in this city. This government believes in the ingenuity and enterprise of Australians, and the John Curtin School of Medical Research is testament to that spirit. I thank and congratulate the director of the school, Professor Chris Parish, and his team for the work they are doing, and I look forward to seeing where their world-class research takes us forward in the coming decades.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He works tirelessly to advocate on behalf of people living with a disability, which accounts for 39 per cent of the Australian Human Rights Commission's caseloads—the largest component of the commission's work, which continues to increase each year—yet soon his role will no longer exist. Graeme Innes has been the Disability Discrimination Commissioner since 2005 and, as well as undertaking roles as the Human Rights Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner during his tenure, he has been the full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner since 2011. In that time, he has been an advocate for individuals and communities affected by discrimination, engaged Australians in a national conversation about human rights and worked with the public service and the private sector to break down barriers to people with a disability.

At budget estimates, he told me that he spends at least 60 hours on average each week working in his field—no wonder, when you consider that complaints on the grounds of disability account for about double the next highest category at about 39 per cent of the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Mr Innes believes that complaint levels that high indicate the level of issues and concerns the disability sector faces. Along with helping manage this enormous caseload, Mr Innes has also been an integral part of shaping the new National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The position of Disability Discrimination Commissioner was established in 1993. For more than 20 years, commissioners have been at the forefront of securing access to work, education, premises and services for people with disabilities. But the fight for the rights of Australians with disability is set to become a group effort after changes announced in the Abbott government's first budget. It was revealed that each commissioner has agreed to take a share of the disability workload as it relates to their existing portfolios—as it is the only choice they have under this budget constraint. So, in addition to their current full-time workloads, each commissioner will take a slice of the 39 per cent of the Australian Human Rights Commission's caseload.

It remains to be seen how they will juggle already full-time roles alongside disability discrimination responsibilities—an additional 60 hours a week, the current workload of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner—without compromising the current quality of their own work. The promised appointment of a spokesperson with a lived experience of disability at a downgraded level from commissioner does little to compensate for the loss of Mr Innes in that role. The commission has been dealt a devastating hand and is making a genuine effort to deal with this blow; however, integrating this role should never have been an option.

As the NDIS rolls out across the country, it is more important than ever for there to be a federal advocate devoted to those the scheme is assisting. Equally, people forced over and over again to go through reassessment for their disability support pension as a result of the budget deserve to have a commissioner looking out for their rights.

The last time the Abbott government altered the arrangements for commissioners, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, gave the new commissioner a courtesy call ahead of the announcement. Mr Innes has been in contact with Senator Brandis's office and the department since the start of this year trying to discover the fate of his position, but the very first Mr Innes heard that his contract was not going to be renewed was actually on budget night. Buried in the budget papers is a line that callously notes that the dismissal of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner 'will achieve efficiencies within the Human Rights Commission'. Mr Innes is entitled to be a little angry, I would think, but he is surprisingly philosophical about things. As he noted at estimates:

The first that I knew about this issue was when I read it in the budget papers. That was a bit surprising to me because it has been the normal practice in my experience at the commission for there to be discussions when these things are going to occur. I had been contacting the minister's office and the department for the past three or four months, for several reasons. Firstly, obviously I was interested to know what plans I should be making or whether there was any consideration of the possibility of reappointment. Secondly, and more significantly, the previous appointment process, in my view, put the commission at significant risk of losing its A status under the Paris principles, because there was not an open appointment process and I was keen to encourage the department and the minister to appoint a disability discrimination commissioner through an applications process—which has been the practice—and through an open process because I was concerned, from the commission's point of view, about the risk to our A status. So I was not provided with the opportunity to have those discussions and, as I say, the first I knew that the position was to be downgraded was when I read it on the night of the budget in the budget papers.

That is the way that Mr Innes found out about the downgrading of his position—his position as a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner. That is no way to treat this Disability Discrimination Commissioner, who has been in his role since 2005. It is absolutely disgraceful.

We know, of course, that the terms for individual commissioners are set in statute and Mr Innes understands that it is the prerogative of the Attorney-General to appoint commissioners by whatever process, or lack thereof, that he chooses, even if it contradicts the Paris Principles of an open application process. With characteristic vigour, however, Mr Innes has prosecuted the case for a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner and has spoken out against the downgrading of his role. As Mr Innes described in Senate budget estimates, people living with a disability in Australia continue to be disadvantaged. He said:

I have done major work in the last 12 months on access to justice—achieving, if you like, freedom of speech and equal access to the justice system for people with disabilities, where we are overrepresented both as victims and as offenders and alleged offenders. We get half the educational outcomes: 25 per cent of people with disabilities achieve year 12 and 50 per cent of the general population achieve year 12. Also, 45 per cent of us live in poverty.

Forty-five per cent of people with disabilities continue to live in poverty, yet the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, is taking away the person that can advocate for and represent them.

Ahead of what the Abbott government had always foreshadowed was going a tight budget, Senator Brandis made the curious decision to add a commissioner while at the same time taking away more than $1.5 million of funding from the Australian Human Rights Commission's budget. Clearly the Abbott government's decision to appoint Tim Wilson as the freedom commissioner has come at the expense of Australia's first full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner. Clearly the Abbott government has prioritised freedom commissioner over having a Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

The issues faced by the disability sector are complex and multifaceted. Disability transforms the perspective of those it affects—a point that Mr Innes made to the estimates committee when arguing for a full-time commissioner. But we know that when a former fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, and a personal friend of Senator Brandis, Tim Wilson, became the freedom commissioner in February, it hit the Australian Human Rights Commission's budget by around $700,000. Something had to give, obviously. To cope with the new budgetary constraints, the commission will be forced to relegate the disability discrimination role to a part-time role or a shared responsibility. I think it is absolutely shameful that there will no longer be a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner when I have outlined the weight of the caseload that the commission faces and the issues facing the disability sector in Australia. So many Australians living with a disability will no longer have a full-time advocate.

During budget estimates Mr Innes described some of the issues that he dealt with as Disability Discrimination Commissioner. I quote:

I have dealt with issues of concern in Brisbane, where audible traffic signals are turned off at night; so there is effectively a curfew for people who are blind or who have low vision. I have dealt with a range of issues arising from the budget, both positive and negative. The rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme: I have been very involved in its development and rollout and the benefits that that will bring for people with disabilities; the impact of the budget in a range of other areas; the disproportionate impact of any medical co-payments on people with disability-related illnesses; the disadvantage for people on the disability support pension who are being assessed again when they have already been assessed for that; for people under 35; the problems with regard to employment for people with disabilities, where we work at a rate 30 per cent lower than the general population.

This is a significantly disadvantaged sector and I am dealing with issues that relate to that every day that I am in this role. … I do not suggest for a minute that my colleagues and staff at the commission will not continue to work very effectively in this role, but that will be a significant disadvantage to them and to the disability sector in Australia.

That makes the impact of Senator Brandis's decision, the Abbott government's decision—reducing the commission's budget and no longer having a full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner—fairly clear.

I particularly want to draw on impact that Graeme Innes has had in his role. He has had such an impact in our Australian community in dealing with issues to do with disability from his own personal experience. I think he summed it up very well during budget estimates when he said:

I think there is little doubt in my mind, having been a commissioner for some eight years, and in the mind of the disability sector, that the disability sector is significantly advantaged by having a full-time disability discrimination commissioner with lived experience of disability and with knowledge of the disability sector. My lived experience of disability goes through all of my life. My experience in the disability sector started in my 20s, so I bring to the role 30 or 40 years' experience. Whilst all of my colleagues at the commission are skilled and I have a lot of regard for them, none of them would be able to bring that experience to the role and, in my view, that would be a significant downgrading of the position.

I stand in support of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who has asked Prime Minister Tony Abbott to reinstate the Disability Discrimination Commissioner as a full-time role. What Australians with a disability have had for all of these years is someone who understands too well the challenges they face, who has empathy for their difficulties. What they need for the future is a full-time commissioner who can imagine an Australia without barriers for people who are born with or acquire a disability. Mr Graeme Innes was that man and will leave a lasting legacy. He has been an extremely powerful advocate for people with disability, working hard every day to ensure that people with disability have access to the same rights and opportunities as all Australians. That is the kind of society that we should want for all people, and that is the role that Mr Innes has been able to provide. Labor thanks Graeme Innes for the remarkable work that he has done at the Australian Human Rights Commission over the last decade on disability rights. He is leaving a lasting legacy. It is just such a shame that Senator Brandis is so short-sighted and is doing this terrible injustice for people in the disability community.