Bringing Science to Parliament

Science meets Parliament (SmP), an annual event organised by the Federation of Australian Science and Technology Societies (FASTS), has grown to become one of the most significant opportunities for Australian scientists to interact with, and influence, federal politics.




Recently, I travelled to Canberra as a delegate from the Ecological Society of Australia and joined about 160 scientific delegates from a range of disciplines to meet with federal parliamentarians. Several discussion topics were on the agenda including climate change; environmental degradation; loss of biodiversity; extreme weather; research infrastructure; private and public sector R&D collaboration; carbon emissions and renewable energy; biomass fuels versus food production versus environmental protection; and science education.

The event was divided into two days. Day One was spent in Old Parliament House learning about the art of lobbying and getting messages across to politicians.

Presentations by lobbyists and political strategists were particularly enlightening. Politicians are lobbied all the time, and so one must refine the message down to a few key points. Scientists have credibility as honest brokers. More important than having scientific independence is the credibility that comes with having ‘scientific integrity’.

We were reminded that science research had received a progressively lower share of public funding, and of GDP, over the previous decade. The outlook is better for the years ahead. An Innovation review is in progress, which will be developed into a White Paper prior to the 2009 Budget. For measuring institutional research performance, the unpopular RQF (Research Quality Framework) looks set to be replaced over time with a more holistic metric called ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia).

The evening of Day One concluded with an informal dinner attended by the scientific delegates and elected officials. I was seated next to Fran Bailey, Liberal member for McEwen in Victoria.

Day Two featured a succession of meetings with politicians with groups of three or so scientists each. I first met with Sid Sidebottom, ALP member for Braddon. As Mr Sidebottom’s electorate is in north west Tasmania, he was familiar with Tasmanian forestry issues, and acknowledged my view that secure, long-term funding for the work being done at the Warra Long Term Ecological Research site is important. Mr Sidebottom was particularly interested in our views on ways to improve science education in Australia.


My second meeting was with Kelvin Thompson, ALP member for Wills (Victoria). Mr Thompson had a strong interest in the issues surrounding the development of a viable and sustainable biofuels industry for Australia as an alternative to fossil fuels. All three of the scientists in the meeting spoke with one voice when we gave our qualified approval to the need to develop this opportunity, while highlighting some of the environmental and social concerns that could arise from any single-minded approach to commercialising bio-fuels. Mr Thompson was receptive to our ideas, and was well informed on the topic.

We were invited to attend a lunchtime press conference at the National Press Club, at which the new Minister for Innovation, Kim Carr, gave a suitably upbeat speech focussed on science and innovation. I was struck by how most of the questions from the media were on more mundane issues, such as the Minister’s relationships with other politicians and his views on Australia’s automotive industry. It was a reminder of the important role the media play in both acting as a conduit for matters of public and political interest, but also as a filter.

As a result of this experience, I was able to see first hand the workings of Parliament and how lobbying and the media influence the democratic process. As a scientist working in an area of intermittently intense public and political interest, I am sure to have the opportunity to use the skills I further developed by attending this event.
.