- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 6 September 2001
Medical Research Funding
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 11 of 49
| Next Item »
Page: 16502
Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [12.33 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Commonwealth Government's commitment of an additional $600 million for medical research over the next six years;
(2) expresses concern at the Government's failure to create a climate in New South Wales which strengthens the scientific basis for health care and fosters investment in the biotechnology industry; and
(3) calls on the Government to follow the lead of the Commonwealth and other States and increase funding to provide necessary infrastructure support for key medical research establishments in New South Wales.
I gave notice of this motion on 21 October 1999. During debate on the previous motion the Minister commented about the delay in commencing debate on these types of motions. It is a disgrace that the Government does not allow this House more opportunity to discuss motions that have been placed on the notice paper because they are of great interest and importance to the people of this State. The fact that this motion is still relevant for debate two years after being placed on the notice paper speaks volumes for what is happening in New South Wales. Compared with other States, such as Victoria and Queensland, New South Wales has been very mean in providing infrastructure funding for research. The Carr Government has provided almost no growth funding until quite recently despite knowing that we need to catch up considerably to be able to compete with other States that are benefiting from the enormous growth potential of the biotechnology industry.
On 15 August the Government announced an allocation of $68 million for biotech funding over the next five years. On that day I issued a press release which stated "Carr Government's Biotech Funding—Too Little, Too Late". That theme was picked up by the Australian Financial Review on 27 August in an article under the heading "Too little too late for NSW biotech lobby". The article referred to the authors of a 1999 report aimed at boosting the New South Wales biotechnology sector and stated:
[They] have attacked the Carr Government for failing to adopt many of their recommendations.
They said the NSW Government had been too slow in acting on the report, while Victoria and Queensland had pledged a combined $600 million to biotech development.
Dr Robin Stanley, a management consultant who advised on the report, said:
The NSW Government has decided, belatedly, to act on various recommendations contained in the report on the status of biotechnology in NSW.
... much greater emphasis and support is required to fund biotechnology clusters and attract world-class scientists.
In that same article the report's chief author, Dr Mark Bradley, said he did not know why the Government had taken so long to act on the report. The report was commissioned in 1999 by the Department of State and Regional Development and, unlike Queensland and Victoria, the New South Wales Government has not created any funding initiatives to support growth and expansion of the industry, which may limit future growth and opportunities. I have been concerned for some time about this matter. I gave notice of this motion shortly after the Commonwealth Government announced funding of an additional $600 million for medical research and development over a six-year period. By 2004 this will have doubled existing research funding of the National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], which is responsible for distributing this money to researchers around the country.
Instead of criticising the Howard Government, which is the usual practice of Labor members in this House, this motion provides them with an opportunity to say, "Well done. We applaud your foresight and look forward to the many benefits that will come from enhanced funding for medical research." The Commonwealth's additional funding acknowledges the tremendous importance of medical research in developing new treatment and procedures and in creating a climate that retains or reclaims our brightest young scientists. It acknowledges also the huge potential for Australia, which is one of the few countries with the capacity to harness the benefits of the revolution in biotechnology.
These were the findings of a Commonwealth-commissioned health and medical research strategic review into biotechnology in Australia conducted by Peter Wills, commonly known as the Wills report. It was one of the first reports in this area and is widely acclaimed in the scientific and biotech community. Its findings formed the basis of Coalition policy in this regard in 1999, and they are still regarded in the community as the foundation for investment that will enable Australia to compete in the international biotechnology revolution. That report found:
• technological and structural changes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, are opening opportunities for new players in early stages of the value chain;
• the opportunity for biotechnology firms is shown in the world wide trend of pharmaceutical companies being more willing to outsource research;
• the biotechnology industry provides an opportunity for significant wealth creation and has the potential to help reduce Australia's widening deficit in medical and pharmaceutical products;
• the biotechnology industry forms a key element of a virtuous cycle that mutually reinforces the contributions from the government and the research sector;
• a thriving biotechnology industry requires a number of factors to ensure success including:
- a world class, well funded basic medical research sector—
That again points to the importance of this motion. The report concluded:
- management which supports entrepreneurship and the mobility of researchers between academia and industry,
- clustering of research and industry, which strengthens linkages, reduces career risk of talented employees and allows the formation of specialised supporting industries,
- flow of venture capital.
As I said earlier, those findings form the basis of the Coalition's election commitment prior to 1999. We recognise that New South Wales must do much more to ensure that we attract more funding for clinical research to keep our brilliant researchers at work in this State and to give us the capacity to compete for the biotechnology industry, which has such huge scope not only in relation to fantastic scientific advances—medical treatments and other technology—but also in relation to future employment and financial rewards for this State. I have visited many major research centres in the seven years that I have been shadow Minister for Health. Included in those centres are the Garvan Institute, the Centenary Institute, the Millennium Institute, centres at Royal North Shore and centres at other places. All those centres do incredible work.
If anyone needs to be inspired, I commend to them a visit to those research institutes. I refer also to individual researchers who work within our universities and hospitals who could all do so much more. It is important that we provide them and other medical research establishments with sufficient funds to enable them to compete with States such as Victoria and Queensland. Historically, Victoria has attracted the lion's share of research clinical grants largely because that State has such a well-established research infrastructure. In its last budget the Kennett Government provided $310 million over five years for science engineering and technology initiatives. That is $310 million compared with the $68 million announcement by the Premier in this State. What a differential! When that money was allocated in Victoria the then Victorian Treasurer said in his Budget Speech:
These initiatives will provide maximum benefit where the Government, business and other research institutes work in partnership.
And in all cases, the Government's overriding priority will be to convert the outcomes of scientific advance into increased economic activity, new jobs and lifestyle benefits for all Victorians.
I call on the Carr Government to adopt a similar attitude; to really boost what is happening in this State. It is not good enough for the Minister and the Government to spin doctor and make claims that we have so many pharmaceutical companies and so on. The reality is that we are not doing as well as other States. This is an important industry potential for New South Wales. We are doing the wrong thing by people who could benefit not only from the outcomes of this clinical research but also from a huge boost to employment and income to this State—something which is presently being denied.
Mr McMANUS (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.43 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "That" with a view to inserting instead:
"this House commends the New South Wales Government for its commitment to medical research."
I state at the outset that the Commonwealth Government's increased expenditure on health and medical research is welcome but it is long overdue. Australia has for too long lagged behind in this important area of development. Federal public spending on health and medical research has been at a level that is less than half the weighted average of a group of our international peers. To our credit, despite this fact, this State continues to conduct research of international standing at a rate disproportionate to our comparatively small population. The increased funding from the Commonwealth Government will improve that situation but we should not become complacent and think that its support for health and medical research in Australia is equal to that of other countries.
Even with the increase proposed by the Commonwealth Government, spending in Australia will be only a fraction of what is spent per head of population in the United States of America. The Commonwealth has a long way to go to provide the support that our health and medical research sector deserves. New South Wales has a strong health and medical research sector which receives significant support from this Government. That support, which is broad ranging, encompasses investigator-initiated biomedical research through to priority-driven research and the development of our biotechnology industry. Honourable members might recall that in April last year the Minister announced extra funding for infrastructure and medical research organisations. Over the following three years the Government will have committed $57.5 million to this budget.
Support for world-class medical research work which is being done right here in New South Wales is a commitment of this Government. It is a great investment in the health of our community. The money we put in now will reap huge benefits in later years. These are not just advances in treating disease and improving public health; they are terrific economic gains for New South Wales. These grants are integral to the Carr Government's efforts to make the New South Wales health and medical research industry a major player on the world stage. I turn now to an important initiative. Last year the Minister announced the establishment of a new Cabinet standing committee on biotechnology. This was followed by the establishment of the Ministerial Advisory Council for Biotechnology to support the Minister's role as chairman of the Cabinet committee.
That council comprises a group of highly qualified, high-powered individuals with expertise in research, business biotechnology and ethics. The task of that group has been to identify opportunities, funding models, governance structures and how best this State can lead the national agenda. The chair of the advisory council is Lucy Turnbull. The hard work of that group has culminated in the BioFirst strategy. Three weeks ago the Premier launched the BioFirst strategy, which will provide $68 million over five years. That funding is to be leveraged for similar amounts from both the Commonwealth Government and the private sector. At the heart of the strategy are two fundamental themes: first, to build on our research base, to attract and retain the biggest brains possible, to give them state-of-the-art facilities to work in, to encourage them to share and improve their ideas, and to create and support dynamic biotechnology hubs.
The second theme follows the first: to help turn those bright ideas into dynamic businesses that can provide our children with skilled jobs and the kind of future that we would want them to have. The BioFirst strategy is special because it seeks to marry those two important objectives. A biounit that will answer directly to the Premier will promote those objectives. It will also be charged with a bioethics component. This important part of the strategy will involve the community and address the sensitive ethical issues raised in this field. Biotechnology offers enormous benefits, both in relation to living healthier and longer lives and in relation to economic prosperity. The competition in biotechnology is ferocious. The landscape changes constantly and relentlessly. Idea after idea is patented, fresh technologies emerge and are developed, and new drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tools constantly enter the market.
One of the key messages of the BioFirst strategy is co-operation. It is about working together. Australia is a small country if we have regard to its population and capital. We cannot afford to engage in the kind of parochial jostling that has characterised much of the past. We have much bigger fish to fry. Our competition is international; our vision must be global. If we are to compare ourselves with anyone it should be with Boston, or Singapore. This co-operation begins at a laboratory and it grows into a relationship between research hubs. It is no longer appropriate to think in geographic and territorial terms. The Government and, ultimately, the market, will reward those who work together. That same co-operation must also extend to our attitude as a nation. Most people to whom I speak do not care much for interstate posturing. However, they do care about the fact that Australia, as a whole, is positioned to be a world leader. Let me now convey to the House some of the comments made by leading researchers about BioFirst. Professor Tony Cunningham from the Millennium Institute, Westmead, said:
This strategy will bring focus and energy to biomedical research and the commercialisation of life science technology in New South Wales. It represents a significant leap forward for researchers and the biotechnology industry.
Professor John Rostas from Hunter Medical Research Institute said:
This strategy is the culmination of an extensive process of consultation with the research community of New South Wales. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to harness the potential of regional communities for research and development, particularly in the areas of health and agriculture.
Professor John Shine from the Garvan Institute of Medical Research had this to say:
Biotechnology offers enormous promise for our community. With the initiatives contained in BioFirst, the State Government has demonstrated leadership and commitment to the promotion of New South Wales as a world player in biomedical research.
I turn now to other initiatives. The New South Wales Government has provided substantial support for the establishment of the Australian Technology Park, which is a major centre for biotechnology research. The Government also supports research through the New South Wales-based co-operative research centres [CRCs]. More than half of the 63 CRCs are located in New South Wales, or have partners in New South Wales. New South Wales CRCs have been successful in developing commercial products and spawning new companies. A climate that will continue to strengthen the scientific basis for health care in New South Wales already exists. Initiatives at a clinical level are providing the data needed to strengthen the scientific basis for the delivery of health care.
A large number of publications in peer-reviewed medical journals are submitted by people employed by the New South Wales health system. To improve the provision of clinical care, clinicians and health service managers are being trained in methods of evaluating safety and quality in health care. New South Wales Health, through its research and development strategy, has already implemented a number of initiatives that featured in the Wills review recommendations. Wills recommended that each State health authority should appoint a research director. New South Wales was well ahead of other jurisdictions. New South Wales appointed its first Director of Research and Development and established a specific Research and Development Branch of the Health Department. Subsequently, the role of the branch was broadened to include clinical policy in recognition of the important nexus between research and the application of research results through clinical policy.
Wills recommended that State health authorities increase communication between researchers and decision makers. New South Wales Health established the Research and Development Advisory Committee in early 1996. The committee has representatives from the university and from industry and government sectors in addition to researchers, health professionals and government. Communication between researchers and decision makers has been greatly facilitated through this committee. Fostering investment in the biotechnology industry has been a major initiative of the Carr Labor Government. Sydney is one of the most cost-competitive research locations in the Asia-Pacific region. The majority of pharmaceutical-related companies choose Sydney for their head office. Sydney is home to a range of world-class research and development facilities that are linked to leading-edge developments worldwide.
The New South Wales Government is actively promoting our State as a site for biotechnology investment. At present it is estimated that 41 per cent of Australian biotechnology companies are located in New South Wales. This Government takes the development of our biotechnology industry very seriously, and we are proud of our achievements to date. In 1999 the State was host to a G8 delegation that came to New South Wales specifically to see our telemedicine program in action. This program is at the leading edge of health communication technology. This summary highlights the many initiatives undertaken in New South Wales to continue to create a climate that strengthens the scientific basis for health care and fosters investment in the biotechnology industry. I commend my amendment to the House.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [12.53 p.m.]: I congratulate the shadow Minister for Health on not only raising this issue two years ago but making it happen by continually putting pressure on the Carr Government, dragging it kicking and screaming to finally get some small amount of funding out of Treasury for this issue. But I emphasise that it took two years of the shadow Minister's dragging the Government forward to get some action. I congratulate also the Parliamentary Secretary on managing to cram into his 10 minutes an extraordinary amount of rhetoric about what the Carr Government would really like to do if it were interested in its job in New South Wales. But it is not. It was 10 minutes of rhetoric and 10 minutes of, "I have a dream. I am going to do something about it," as we heard earlier.
Mr McManus: I have a vision.
Mr DEBNAM: The Parliamentary Secretary says he has a vision. One day it may turn into a dream for him and maybe, with a new government, something will happen in New South Wales. But nothing is happening under this Government. Let us talk about governments that have done something—the Commonwealth and the Victorian governments. In his 1999-2000 speech the Victorian Treasurer said, "…developing our capacity to develop new ideas and ultimately to realise those ideas as commercial opportunities".
Mrs Skinner: How long ago was that?
Mr DEBNAM: That was a couple of years ago.
Mrs Skinner: Way ahead of us.
Mr DEBNAM: The New South Wales shadow Minister for Health and the Victorian Government were years ahead of this Government in pushing this issue as a priority. The Victorian Government is light years ahead of the New South Wales Government in doing something about it, other than delivering rhetoric. New South Wales has not learned from the Victorian experience. Victoria had a can-do government. Perhaps the Bracks Government has a sense of can-do that was left over from the Kennett Government. I hope that New South Wales eventually picks up some ideas from Victoria and makes use of them. About a month ago when I was in Israel I noted that the community has a vision for the future of its country. Israel invests in research and entrepreneurship. It makes things happen.
Israel turns visions into reality, whereas in New South Wales we turn vision into rhetoric. The Parliamentary Secretary has given a wonderful example of that today. A press release from the Treasurer of New South Wales dated August this year announced an allocation of $68 million for research and development, but as any number of commentators said, that is a mere pittance for New South Wales. But the last paragraph of the press release refers to this State's unique whole-of-government strategy to deal with this issue. I can assure honourable members that the New South Wales Government does not have a whole-of-government approach for anything in New South Wales. It simply adopts a knee-jerk reaction. The Minister for Police has just entered the Chamber—that is a wonderful example of a knee-jerk reaction. A whole-of-government strategy on policing would be magnificent for the people of New South Wales, especially people in Auburn for the next 48 hours.
But instead we have witnessed knee-jerk reactions, depending on which electorate the Minister for Police is in. New South Wales needs a good strategy, not rhetoric, to deal with this matter. On 13 April 2000, when the Minister for Health was under some pressure, in response to a question without notice he said that it was terrific to do this, this was a terrific initiative, that was a terrific thing to do, and it was a great response. He said that the Government had massively increased funds, and that it was good news. That is rubbish! It is rhetoric. The Government is full of rhetoric. Time and again that rhetoric unravels. The shadow Minister for Health pointed out that the $68 million referred to by the Government was a pittance when compared to the contributions made by the Commonwealth and other States and the potential in this area.
It is clear that the New South Wales Government does not understand the magnitude of the challenge. It was very well covered in an article in the Australian Financial Review which the shadow Minister referred to earlier. The authors of the 1999 report attacked the Carr Government for its failure to act on the report. When the Government did act, the authors said that it was too little too late. The actions of the Government indicate that it is asleep at the wheel on this issue, on policing and on any other issues in New South Wales. Its priorities are wrong. It has been all headlines and spin, but it has reached the point where the spin cycle is running dry. We need to get back to basics; we need to get back to first principles; we need to do it right. This is a major issue for New South Wales. The Government should make a major investment and encourage the private sector.
Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.
[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Beamer) left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:40 : Update this page