Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

AUSTRALIAN SYNCHROTRON: FUNDING
1638 COUNCIL Wednesday, 1 June 2011
AUSTRALIAN SYNCHROTRON: FUNDING
Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) —
I move:
That this house condemns the Baillieu government for putting
further pressure on Victoria’s advanced manufacturing sector
by failing to commit ongoing funding for the Australian
Synchrotron and notes that the synchrotron —
(1) is a major tool for research and development; and
(2) plays an important part in the development of advanced
new products and processes which are key elements in
maintaining and growing Victoria’s manufacturing base.
I am going to do something rather unusual today. I am
going to commence my contribution by quoting from
an interview between Peter Mares, who is the host of
the Radio National program National Interest, and his
guest on the program Emeritus Professor of Chemistry,
Professor Frank Larkins. I do this in order to give an
insight into what the highly gifted individuals who
actually use the synchrotron and the scientific
community think about the potential closure of this
facility and also to give an insight into how incredulous
the scientific community is at the potential closure of
the Australian Synchrotron.
As I would expect from a professor, Professor Larkins’s
views are objective — that is, they are evidence based,
unlike the polemic that goes on in this place. With the
house’s indulgence — this is quite a lengthy
interview — I will now commence.
Peter Mares — How important is the synchrotron to
Australian science and research?
Frank Larkins — Oh, it’s absolutely critical. It’s a world-class
facility which does represent what we would call
displacement science. You can do experiments at the
synchrotron that you cannot do in your laboratory and if you
want to attract and retain world-class people, we want to be
seen in the top echelons of research performance world wide
… It’s a facility that we must have and it’s something that
we’ve lobbied for since the early 1990s, in fact.
Peter Mares — And are you worried about the future of its
funding?
Frank Larkins — Well, the future … It’s clearly of great
concern to everyone that if we are, as I said earlier, to
continue to be seen as a world-class contributor to science and
technology, then it’s a must-have facility and the failure to put
in place a forward plan for funding beyond 2012 is of great
concern.
Peter Mares — And so, could the synchrotron be shut down
in the middle of next year? Is that conceivable?
Frank Larkins — Well, we all hope not. I mean, it is in the
hands of the politicians now. But that would be a disaster for
Australia. It’s a disaster for science. And we just cannot allow
that to happen. But yes, Peter, in theory, it could happen.
Peter Mares — How did it come to this, where we build a
world-class research facility at a cost of $200 million plus,
and now we don’t know whether we’re going to fund it
beyond the next 12 months?
Frank Larkins — Well, you really need to ask other people to
answer this question …
Peter Mares — But as you say, this is now in the hands of
politicians. And part of the issue here, as I understand it, is
that the Brumby government were big supporters of the
synchrotron. In fact, it was known as ‘Brumby’s Baby’. The
Victorian government jumped in to get the facility before
Queensland and New South Wales, that were both interested
in it as well …
Frank Larkins — I understand all that. I think we should just
reflect for a moment, though, because in the early 2000s, the
federal government was convinced of the importance of
Australia having such a facility and as you said, they set up a
competition, and again, it’s an indication that the Queensland
government, the New South Wales government, the Victorian
government, all saw this as a critical piece of national
infrastructure, and all governments, the federal and the three
eastern state governments, all said initially, ‘We want this
facility’. So, the question is, what fundamentally has changed
such that it is now not critical to our future? And the answer,
of course, is that nothing’s changed; it is still critical to our
future.
I ask the same question: what has changed? Why has
this vital facility that the federal government and the
three eastern states competed for been seemingly wiped
out by the Baillieu government with the stroke of the
pen? If I may channel Professor Larkins’s question:
how has it come to this? I will answer that question a
little later in my contribution, but first I want to talk
about the synchrotron and what it does.
The Australian Synchrotron is one of the most
significant pieces of science infrastructure in the
Southern Hemisphere. It was officially opened on
31 July 2007 by the Brumby government. The facility
was constructed with funding of $157 million from the
Victorian government’s capital fund and, as I recall,
about $50 million of federal funding. The synchrotron
is used for critical research and knowledge production
across a wide range of applications, including
manufacturing, health, minerals, materials, food
security, climate change mitigation, energy security,
homeland security and biosecurity.
The advent of the synchrotron has significantly
increased the depth and breadth of world-class research
that can be undertaken by Australian and New Zealand
scientists. Let us not forget New Zealand in this. The
synchrotron is not just for Victorians and it is not just
for Australia — New Zealand is also a stakeholder in
this facility.
The users of the synchrotron are rapidly diversifying to
encompass a broad cross-section of the research