Health and education will be the two most talked about issues in the federal election campaign, however long – or short – it may be. Promises will be made (and inevitably broken) and lies told.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That's incredibly sad because if we are to believe the PM, Malcolm Turnbull, that we are entering an exciting period of innovation, growth and development (Bill Shorten does not appear to have serious disagreement with that) then both issues – plus science, which should be included in the broad category of education – it is time to sort out whether each should have both federal and state ministries and bureaucracies.
My preference would be for federal jurisdiction over both. As it is now the feds provide the money; the states control how it is spent. Perhaps it’s time states bowed out.
In last Friday's The SMH, there were two well-weighted articles on the future needs and requirements of health and science.
Dealing with health first it needs to be acknowledged the Australian health care system is the envy of many countries. Vlado Perkovic, head of the George Institute for Global Health, and Leanne Wells, CEO of the Commonwealth Health Forum, wrote: "A revolution in health is overdue; health care is ripe for change".
That was not a criticism of doctors, nurses or other health professionals. Indeed, anyone who has watched the first five episodes of the ABC's excellently produced show, Keeping Australia Alive, (there are two left on the next two Tuesday evenings) will acknowledge how good our health professionals can be.
Perkovic and Wells say we are still waiting for the internet and technology revolution that changed the banks two decades ago to reach co-ordinated health care and "we need to ensure government and the community support consumer-led initiatives in the design, delivery and self-management of health".
Importantly, they said "the era of telemedicine needs to be embraced ... for example. Medicare does not fund consultations made online, but imagine if you could visit your GP online from the comfort of your home and desk?"
There is more to their argument but it brings into question the other article, by Professor Les Field, senior deputy vice-chancellor of UNSW, who takes up the issue of politicians slicing into the CSIRO.
Field begs an answer: "In our focus on innovation geared towards commercialisation, have we overlooked the tremendous value of research done in the public interest?" As the headline on Field's article accurately puts it: "Who'll serve the public if CSIRO won't?" – or can't, because of the lack of funds.
Of 16 Australian Nobel laureates since 1915, eight were in the field of physiology or medicine; five were scientists – the other three were authors (two) and an economist.
Field points to three reasonably recent ground-breaking inventions by research organisations like the CSIRO and our universities – the world's first influenza drugs, smart mathematics that enabled superfast Wi-Fi and the bionic ear; it was the CSIRO animal health laboratories that in 2012 discovered the Hendra horse vaccine.
Australian Geographic in June, 2010, published the top 20 Australian inventions that changed the world, ranging from the black box flight recorder (1961) to Howard Florey's medical application of penicillin (1939).
The great French microbiologist, Louis Pasteur, said: "Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity and is the torch which illuminates the world." – Graham Gorrel