Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:
The biggest story in the bush this week. Kevin Rudd and his Labor Government have broken a key election promise made to Rural Australia.
LABOR’S election promise to “revitalise” the CSIRO has actually turned out to be $63 million worth of cuts over the next four years, resulting in 100 full time research 100 jobs being lost and the closure of four research laboratories and other rationalisations.
Two Livestock Industries research labs will be closed. A small one in Western Australia (2 staff) and Australia’s and the Southern Hemisphere’s leading Livestock research facility in Rockhampton Queensland (35 staff).
Closures include one of Australia’s leading Horticulture research Facilities at Merbein near Mildura , in Victoria (50 staff), and a forest biosciences lab at Cooroy, in southeast Queensland.
The Textiles and Fibre and materials science divisions will also be merged to reduce costs.
Increasing resources of the CSIRO was a central plank in Labor’s innovation policy in last year’s election campaign to underpin future productivity and economic growth.
Labor’s election blueprint claimed the CSIRO had been under-resourced under the Howard government and faced an infrastructure crisis resulting in a loss of research skills and a contraction in job security.
The president of the CSIRO Staff Association, Dr Michael Borgas speaking about the closures said:
“The significant research at Merbein (VIC) had been work on dried fruit. Virtually the entire Australian dried-grape industry relied on CSIRO clones and varieties. Research on light mechanical pruning at Merbein had helped the wine industry reduce costs while retaining and improving yield and quality.
The closures are lazy, knee-jerk management. If Australia is to meet the many challenges we face in relation to global warming, water and food security and quality, we should be boosting - not cutting - support for the CSIRO.”
AgForce Policy Director Oscar Pearce told us that AgForce was not consulted prior to the announcement on Wednesday the 21st on May. AgForce is very concerned about the ramifications of the closure of The Rendell Laboratory complex in Rockhampton QLD.
The complex was opened in April 1981 and is the largest covered animal research facility in the Southern Hemisphere.
AgForce Cattle president Greg Brown had this to say;
“We believe this research capability is crucial if agricultural emissions research is to be effective. The facility includes gas-exchange respiration chambers and 18 metabolic crates for detailed physiology and biochemical measurements on cattle.
The Rendell Laboratory also has two climate-controlled rooms, enabling the study of animals under laboratory-controlled tropical conditions, meaning the research carried out in central Queensland has implications for many other extensive beef-producing areas.
In the context of agriculture adapting to a changing climate and facing pressure to reduce its emissions profile, we think it is critical that climate change research is continued.
We are surprised and disappointed that industry was not consulted prior to today’s announcement given that a major refit, including two laboratories and equipment rooms costing more than $3 million, was completed in 2006 and less than two years later this money will be wasted if the labs are sold.
Agricultural innovation and the use of new technologies in food production are vital if we are to meet increasing world demand for food, and for domestic consumers to avoid further inflationary pressures on food purchases.
Increasing productivity and profitability in rural industries, especially food industries, is the only way that consumers will gain relief from elevated food prices, and this productivity relies on world-leading science. Rendell has been a centre for such research - the major question now is how that can be continued.”
Queensland Nationals Senator Ron Boswell on his Blog site had this to say:
“The JM Rendell Laboratory (at Rockhampton) provides vital research for Queensland’s $3 Billion beef industry through its work in genetics, nutrition and the interaction of livestock with the environment.
Coalition Governments have kept this facility open and the Rudd Government’s first budget has closed it down.
This closure now has the potential to throw into question the role of the Belmont Research Station that has operated for 55 years and is run by the Rockhampton CSIRO.
Labor Member for Rockhampton Kirsten Livermore can no longer shirk her responsibilities; it was her government’s budget cuts that closed this facility and she has done nothing to stop it.
Rockhampton is the Beef Capital of Australia and so it is logical that a world class beef research unit be based there, close to the industry it services.
This is yet another blow to Central Queensland with the loss of at least 7 Regional Partnerships projects, 4 Small Business Field Officers and now 27 staff from a beef industry laboratory.”
Greens Senate Leader Christine Milne said cutting research funding should be a last resort. She had this to say:
“At a time when we need to boost our know-how and productivity, the Rudd government is taking us backwards.
.
It is very clear that countries that prosper are those that regard innovation as critical to their development.”
———————————————————
Have Your Say! Give us your thoughts on the scaling down of Agricultural Research Funding?
Related Posts
- Joyce warns Labors Free Market policy destroying Regional Australia
- Rural Australia needs Intelligent Politicians in Canberra With Inpedendent Views
- Liberals Betray Nationals & Rural Australia
- Ross Garnaut Final Report is Grim For Rural & Regional Australia
- National Farmers Federation is out of Touch With Rural Australia
Tags: Research
Perhaps Mr Rudd is aknowledging that man-induced Climate change is a scam, and climate change research a waste of resources!
AgForce Cattle president Greg Brown must know that there is minimal relationship between what consumers pay and farm gate returns to producers.
While we might mourn the loss of these important CSIRO institutions it would be better to use valid arguments for their retention.
it is sad to see that this rudd goverment has broken its word to rural australia.why are they putting people out of the work force,even if they move these people to new areas who is going to pay for this WE ARE! also the rural areas are hurting with fuel etc etc etc…..
when are they going to wake up!
Mr Rudd wake up
Out of every adversity is the seed to greater opportunity….wouldn’t it be good if the CSIRO facilities were bought by private investors, and the research to be able to continue. That way, the research results would not be skewed by whatever government of the day is in power, to suit their currents fads.
Imagine if the research results were allowed to be published to say that cattle burping aren’t really to blame for the supposed holes in the ozone layer (as if we don’t already know that).
Imagine if our peak industry groups were those private investors to take over those facilities, we would have some semblance of control over what research is conducted and have ownership of the scientific data etc.
Imagine if that data was freely available to us as producers, and not buried in beauracratic confidentiality and red tape!!!
No doubt these facilites will be going cheap….who else would want to buy cattle holding pens?
Maybe its time for MLA, Agforce, Cattle Council etc etc, to step up and start working together to procure these facilities, in the interests of all cattle producers, and in the longterm, their own group survival.
Great stuff Natalie. There are few people in government circles who can laterally think these days. The thing about Rudd et al is that there appears to be no one who can see what the end result of what they do or say.
You are right isn saying that the agencies all too oftn have been very controlled in the information they give out or what is ‘flavour if the month’. Unfortunately most of the better people have resigned from the agencies for a better life leaving in general those with less commercial acumen and work commitment.
Good ideas - we need more of people like you.
G’day Natalie,
I agree with Lindsay. Great lateral thinking. I’m sure using some of the $600 million dollars a year collected as producer levy would be well spent on a research facility like Rendell. This idea should be pursued.
While I understand the need to use our livestock levies for R & D, I would question whether MLA or any of the current Red Meat Industry bodies are the right organisations to do the job. I would have chosen the CSIRO well before continuing with the R & D MLA are involved in.
As all of these Red Meat Industry organisations are funded out of Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue, they are Government Instrumentalities and not controlled by producers.
Anyone can procure and read the “Outcomes of Research and Development” produced by MLA annually. These reports indicate nothing is happening and they account to no producer about the neccesity and validity of their reseach. Indeed excluding last years report, the two previous reports were identical in just about every respect. Some of the items had not had “research” done on them for years.
Whatever happens, R & D needs to be livestock producer controlled, with clear achievable KPIs versus $’s spent, so that we know that our levies are not wasted on “pork barrelling” for votes at MLA AGM’s. Having comments about triple bottom line benefits of R & D, in MLA reports, is a catch phrase for saying “we don’t know what the $ benefit is.” As a result millions of $’s are wasted achieving nothing for livestock producers, or researching items already exhaustively studied overseas. In the second case literature surveys would have sufficed and been a much cheaper alternative.
The government does need to review urgently the massive “black hole” that MLA is. In doing so their R&D program also needs to come under heavy scrutiny. Data about and from current MLA R&D projects is not freely available, why would this change?
John,
I hear what you are saying and fully agree about the MLA’s use of producer levy monies.
But as a producer wouldn’t you feel better about some of the money going into a world class cattle research facility like the Rendell centre with producer driven objectives / KPI’s through the likes of the Cattle Council and AgForce (who already own the Belmont research centre just 20kms away).
Thanks Steve,
You’ve got a slight advantage over me here, as I don’t know those R & D facities like you do, because I’m from SA.
If we have producer driven projects, including costings, KPI’s and actual potential benefits, and the research hasn’t already been done elsewhere in the world, I’d be happy for my levies to support these R&D projects where-ever they can be economically carried out.
What I don’t want is my levies going into a “black hole” where there is no accountability to the producer, no KPI’s and no means of actually working out if there is an actual benefit at the end of the project to the levy payer, who should get the benefit of the research. This is just not happening with MLA R & D.
Cattle Council could only have a role if they removed the Red Meat Industry hats and actually supported the livestock producer, you must remember Cattle Council played a role in our recent levy increases for which, to date, we have received no tangible benefit.
Not even a squeak out of Cattle Council in relation to the ACCC grocery price enquiry. This indicates to me that they are under the control of the remainder of the Red Meat Industry Council.
John,
Yes its only about 5 hours up the road from me. Rendell is a world class facility with Climate Control rooms so good they can simulate the exact climate change an animal goes through as if it was traveling overland from Melbourne to Darwin and then on a boat to Indonesia.
They also have the facilities to research methane gas emissions from livestock etc etc.
Those details of accountability etc would have to be worked through. But the core of the issue is that the MLA is rolling in hundreds of millions of dollars of producer levies and I could not think of a better use for it than to use it too buy and fund the livestock research centre at Rockhampton.
These facilities need to be overseen by producer driven steering committees. Agencies are accountable to Governments - not producers (users). Producers need ownership of work. They take more notice of it that way. MLA has done a good job on some of their programs in recent years and some of the program leaders have been businesslike in getting funding from beneficiaries.
However I often wonder whether some producers really want to get ahead and provide a better product. We have to be one step in front of the crowd or we will be trampled in the rush. Have MLA buy it!
I agree we need to keep ahead of the pack,and do the necessary R&D, but the overiding problem remains.
The Federal Government controls CSIRO funding and it also control MLA funding, both of which come from Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue. No producer is going to get a say in whether MLA can spend Commonwealth Consolidate Revenue to buy this facility. Our levies go into Consolidated Revenue. As soon as this happens producers have lost any control over their use.
Considering how many times the climate controlled rooms have been mentioned on this forum, I would like to share my story with you it has a good ending, so please read on.
When I was employed by Rendell labs in 2001 to conduct research on heat stress in cattle, the climate control rooms consisted of a sorry mess of rusting and obsolete equipment. Over the next 18 months, the rooms were transformed into the best facility in the southern hemisphere.
To give you an idea of the state of the art, when cattle were in the chambers, I was able to log in to the network from my home in Yeppoon to check the temperature humidity and air quality and could even access a real-time videocam to see what the animals were doing!
If the parameters of the chambers exceeded certain limits, I would automatically be sent the details by SMS to my mobile! I had attracted the interest of MLA, LiveCorp and a private firm in developing a product to make cattle more resilient to heat stress and was two years into a five year employment contract when CSIRO axed the project and myself.
Undaunted, the private firm asked me whether I would be prepared to undertake contract research for them at Rendell labs if they were to hire the facilities. Rendell labs declined to hire out the facility!
To my knowledge, the facility has never been used for heat stress research since my departure. I then teamed up with the firm as an R&D consultant and research was conducted at QDPI, UQ and at various feedlots.
The product is now commercially available and is selling extremely well in Australia and elsewhere in the world. All because private industry had the courage to invest in solving a problem that CSIRO considered unworthy of funding.
As for myself, I live a full and contented life on the Sunshine Coast as an R&D consultant to the commercial livestock feed industry.
Research into heat stress to make cattle more resilient would be very worthwhile.
What is the product? We have a small feedlot but mostly use it only through winter.
I’m not surprised that CSIRO axed it early in the 2000’s - a lot of good projects in many organizations were axed - if it didn’t fit in with the US global warming religion of carbon trading, sequestration, and measuring methane from cattle then it was axed.
I think we had a coup in Australia 2001-02 and we are becoming aware of it now. I hope we can stop this madness somehow. The only trouble is it might have to get worse before enough people wake-up.