Report by Dr Simon Grove on "Science meets
Parliament" held 18-19 March 2008
Simon is a conservation biologist for the Division of Forest
Research and Development, Forestry Tasmania
Science meets Parliament (SmP) is an annual event organised by the
Federation of Australian Science and Technology Societies (FASTS),
and has been running since 1999. It has grown to become one of the
most significant opportunities for Australian scientists to
understand, interact with and influence federal politics. The
Ecological Society of Australia (ESA), as a member of FASTS, has
been a supporter of the event since its inception. In 2008, the ESA
paid for three members to attend SmP, including me. In this we
joined about 160 other delegates from a range of disciplines and
science societies affiliated to FASTS. Delegates were
selected on the basis of their expertise or interest in a number of
issues put forward by FASTS and by participating politicians, which
vary from year to year. This year, there were about a dozen issues
up for discussion. Those in which I felt I might be able to make a
contribution included climate change; environmental degradation and
loss of biodiversity; extreme weather; research infrastructure;
private and public sector research and development collaboration;
environmental risks; carbon emissions and renewable energy; biomass
fuels versus food versus environment; and science education.
SmP is broken into two days. Day One, held in Old Parliament
House, is designed to explore the art of political lobbying and
getting messages across to politicians, and to prepare for Day Two
when delegates get the chance to meet with one or more politicians
in Parliament House.
The first few presentations of Day One were by FASTS staff.
These reminded us that science research had received a
progressively lower share of public funding, and of GDP, over the
previous decade. On the other hand, things looked set to change for
the better in the years ahead, although not every branch of science
was likely to be equally favoured by the new government, and it
must also be recognised that funding level is only one measure of
scientific activity. An Innovation review is in progress, to
be developed into a White Paper in time for the 2009 budget. For
measuring institutional research performance, the much-disliked RQF
(Research Quality Framework) looks set to be progressively replaced
with a more holistic metric, ERA (Excellence in Research for
Australia). Science education in schools is also likely to
get a boost.
Later presentations on Day One were by a range of people involved
in various aspects of science policy, government, lobbying and the
media. We were reminded of some key themes of our age that
were likely to preoccupy the new government as it develops new
policies, given its determination to ‘re-engage with
modernity’ on a footing of social justice. Themes include
rising prices for food, water and energy; a change in the global
power balance; an increase in human migration; the need to meet
Millennium Development Goals (on poverty reduction, health
improvement, education, water, sanitation etc); and tensions in the
balance of responsibilities of States and Commonwealth. While
scientists may have some influence in helping to resolve these
issues, the higher up the political agenda an issue becomes, the
less influence individual scientists will have; hence the value in
finding ways to get the science in there as early as possible.
Presentations by the lobbyists and political strategists were
particularly enlightening. Politicians get lobbied all the time,
and are wise to the lobbyists’ tricks. They are
extremely busy, and are quick to recognise when someone is trying
to sell them snake-oil or to otherwise waste their time.
Notwithstanding the point that scientists may consider themselves
to be on a higher ethical plane than other lobbyists with vested
interests, it is still necessary to play by the same rules.
The presenters emphasised the need to hone a message down to a few
key points, and to frame those points in terms of their relevance
to solving a problem faced by the politician (or their
constituents), not forgetting to set the context first (to ensure
mutual understanding). Following up by providing further
information soon after the meeting reaffirms the message.
Like all of us, politicians expect to be treated with politeness
and respect (in lobbying situations, if not during Question
Time). It is advantageous if the politician can take
ownership of the idea the scientist is promulgating, so that the
politician, rather than the scientist, can become its champion and
public face. We were also reminded that ‘scientific
rationality’ is only one of many forms of rationality in
society. To stand a chance of influencing politicians, one
has to learn to communicate one’s science in terms of
political rationality.
Engaging with politicians and the media early in the research cycle
is also useful (so they know to who they should turn when
they need advice). This may require time, money and effort,
but if so this should be seen as an investment. Policy
windows open and close, so timing of lobbying is critical.
For instance the lobbying may be required to pre-empt or coincide
with the release of a report or related news item, or to coincide
with a particularly significant event (such as the anniversary of
the birth of Darwin; or a solar eclipse). Scientists can help
set the agenda here by reminding politicians and the media of
forthcoming events.
Scientists are generally held to be honest brokers and therefore
held in relatively high esteem by the media and by politicians, if
not by some non-governmental interest groups. In this regard
it is worth noting that the concept of ‘scientific
independence’ is different from the concept of
‘scientific integrity’, and it is the latter that we
should be most concerned about maintaining. Being media-savvy
can help to ensure that one’s integrity remains unscathed
through any episode of heightened exposure; media training courses
can help here. It is also worth remembering that the media
will often get the minutiae of the message wrong, but this is not
worth getting upset about since few will notice and the main thing
is to ensure that the big picture comes across correctly.
Even if a journalist wants an instant answer, it’s often
worth asking them to call back in twenty minutes. This can
give you time to compose your response in suitably straightforward
language, and to check out whatever the latest news is that may
have inspired the journalist to contact you, the details or
political ramifications of which he may have neglected to inform
you.
The evening of Day One concluded with a banquet in the Grand Hall
of Parliament House. The 160 delegates were joined by a score
of politicians. I was allocated a seat next to Fran Bailey
MP, LIB member for McEwen (Victoria). The atmosphere of the
evening was very informal – despite the guest speaker
Professor Neville Nicholls delivering a sobering speech on climate
change. Fran proved to be good company for dinner, involving
me and neighbouring scientist diners in conversations on nuclear
power, water politics, forestry and fine furniture, amongst other
subjects. I also got to meet and greet Dick Adams MP, ALP
member for Lyons (Tasmania), which was important for me as I had to
inform him that I wouldn’t be able to make my appointment
with him for the next day because of the timing of my flight back
to Hobart.
Day Two started early for me, as I attended a breakfast launch of a
report in one of the many function rooms at Parliament House.
The report was on what needs doing to get taxonomy in Australia out
of its current parlous state, and was launched by FASTS and the
Australian Biological Resources Study. Unfortunately most of
those present seemed to be taxonomists or at least scientists
rather than politicians, so it is not clear to me whether the
launch will have made much of an impact in the corridors of power
where it matters most.
Much of the rest of the day was given over to a succession of
meetings with politicians by groups of three or so scientists
each. Not all federal politicians choose to participate in
SmP, but sufficient numbers did so this year to give us all the
chance to have meetings with at least one and up to four of them
during the course of the day. We were warned that any of
these meetings could be cancelled or rescheduled at the last
moment, and that a meeting could be interrupted by the politician
being called to a Division.
My first meeting was with Sid Sidebottom MP, ALP member for Braddon
(Tasmania). With Sid’s electorate being in noth west
Tasmania, he was familiar with the Tasmanian forestry situation. He
had even been to our Warra Long Term Ecological Research Site
(LTER), so my lobbying point about the need for secure government
funding for a network of LTER sites like Warra had at least some
resonance with him. While Sid was prepared to discuss some of the
biofuel and carbon issues I had prepared myself for, he was more
interested in our views on ways to improve science education. I
left the meeting with the feeling that there wasn’t anything
that we discussed that was likely to be of immediate consequence
for him, but that I hadn’t made a fool of myself
either. At least I was able to leave him some Forestry
Tasmania and Warra leaflets and notes; I followed up with a
thank-you email on my return.
My second meeting was with Kelvin Thompson MP, ALP member for Wills
(Victoria). Kelvin had a strong interest in the issues surrounding
the development of a viable and sustainable biofuels industry for
Australia to provide 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 such an
industry, while highlighting some of the environmental and social
concerns that would arise from a single-minded approach to biofuel
industry development. Kelvin appeared very receptive to our ideas,
and I got the impression that he was already well-informed in this
area but was looking to us for validation of his understanding.
Unfortunately, our meeting was twice interrupted by calls for a
Division. I left Kelvin with some Forestry Tasmania and Warra
leaflets and notes, and followed up with a thank-you email on my
return. He in turn replied, thanking me for my input, and in
particular for the notes that I left him which he claimed to have
read and found interesting.
Besides these two meetings, FASTS also provided us with the
opportunity to attend a press conference / lunch at the National
Press Club, at which the new Minister for Innovation, Kim Carr,
spoke. While the Minister’s speech was suitably up-beat and
science-and-innovation-focussed, it was quite sobering to note 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.
Before heading for the airport, I ended my day at Parliament House
by visiting the public gallery during Question Time. On the
television one generally only gets to see tightly-cropped images of
whichever minister is speaking. This excludes most of the
peripheral action going on elsewhere in the Chamber (the chatting,
the passing of notes, the shouting…), and therefore masks
much of the theatrical nature of the event. At least having
had a glimpse into the working lives of politicians beyond the
Chamber I am now able to put their all-too-familiar TV performances
into perspective. I am now aware that politicians spend much
more of their days in parliament behind closed doors, hard at work
meeting lobbyists, reading reports, sitting on parliamentary
committees, etc.
I doubt that my one day of lobbying will have made much difference
to any political processes. Nevertheless, at least I have developed
some better insights into the workings of parliament and the role
of lobbying and the media in influencing these. As a scientist
working in an area of intermittently intense public and political
interest, I am almost guaranteed of many chances to use the skills
that my attending this event has helped me to develop.
