❓ Mrs Roberts questions the Minister for Road Safety regarding funding cuts to the neurotrauma research program, despite prior recommendations and alleged promises of increased support. The Minister acknowledges the importance of the program and expresses commitment to finding better, longer-term funding solutions.
AnsweredQoN 507Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NEUROTRAUMA RESEARCH PROGRAM — FUNDING
507. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Road Safety:
(1) Was the minister the government's
representative on the neurotrauma research program until such time as she
became Minister for Road Safety; and, if so, did the minister advise those
members at the final meeting of that organisation that she attended that she
would be able to get them extra funding and a three-year commitment in her new
role as Minister for Road Safety?
(2) Given that the expert and independent
Road Safety Council recommended $1.7 million worth of funding for the
neurotrauma research program, the same amount as last year, why, as minister,
did she sign off on less than half that amount in only one year's
funding?
(3) Does the minister understand that to keep
research expertise in Western Australia and for long-term projects to proceed,
the neurotrauma research program needs a commitment to substantial ongoing
funding and not the year-to-year funding, and funding cuts?
The SPEAKER : Member, this is a long question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : I have finished the question. It is a very
important matter. This is a group that has had its funding more than halved.
507. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Road Safety:
(1) Was the minister the government's
representative on the neurotrauma research program until such time as she
became Minister for Road Safety; and, if so, did the minister advise those
members at the final meeting of that organisation that she attended that she
would be able to get them extra funding and a three-year commitment in her new
role as Minister for Road Safety?
(2) Given that the expert and independent
Road Safety Council recommended $1.7 million worth of funding for the
neurotrauma research program, the same amount as last year, why, as minister,
did she sign off on less than half that amount in only one year's
funding?
(3) Does the minister understand that to keep
research expertise in Western Australia and for long-term projects to proceed,
the neurotrauma research program needs a commitment to substantial ongoing
funding and not the year-to-year funding, and funding cuts?
The SPEAKER : Member, this is a long question.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : I have finished the question. It is a very
important matter. This is a group that has had its funding more than halved.
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question.
(1)–(3)
Yes, I was a government appointee on the neurotrauma research program's
executive committee. For those members who do not understand what this
committee does, it is a committee of people who administer a grants program for
research projects that are focused on ways to prevent neurotrauma injury—that
is, injury to the head and the spinal column—for people involved in
road crashes and on ways for people who sustain a spinal injury in a car crash
or any other kind of accident to recover better. These research projects work
on methods to get a better recovery and to try to help people recover the use
of limbs that may have been disabled as a result of the injury. It is a very
interesting program. I valued the time I had on that committee, and I valued
the insight into the wide range of research projects that took place as a
result of that funding program.
It is true that there was a
recommendation to fund that program to the tune of $1.7 million. I have spoken
to the chair of that committee, Professor Bryant Stokes, about how the
government can better support some of the research projects. I am not prepared
to disclose that conversation to the house at this time, because that
conversation is a starting point to look at how we can better support those
research projects. Research projects are better funded over a longer period of
time. Rather than a 12-month tranche of research, it is in the best interests
of those research projects to fund them for longer periods. I have looked at
mechanisms to try to facilitate that through not only the road trauma trust
account, but also other funding streams, including from the government and the
private sector. Generally, medical research is the poor cousin for funding
streams from the private sector.
(1)–(3)
Yes, I was a government appointee on the neurotrauma research program's
executive committee. For those members who do not understand what this
committee does, it is a committee of people who administer a grants program for
research projects that are focused on ways to prevent neurotrauma injury—that
is, injury to the head and the spinal column—for people involved in
road crashes and on ways for people who sustain a spinal injury in a car crash
or any other kind of accident to recover better. These research projects work
on methods to get a better recovery and to try to help people recover the use
of limbs that may have been disabled as a result of the injury. It is a very
interesting program. I valued the time I had on that committee, and I valued
the insight into the wide range of research projects that took place as a
result of that funding program.
It is true that there was a
recommendation to fund that program to the tune of $1.7 million. I have spoken
to the chair of that committee, Professor Bryant Stokes, about how the
government can better support some of the research projects. I am not prepared
to disclose that conversation to the house at this time, because that
conversation is a starting point to look at how we can better support those
research projects. Research projects are better funded over a longer period of
time. Rather than a 12-month tranche of research, it is in the best interests
of those research projects to fund them for longer periods. I have looked at
mechanisms to try to facilitate that through not only the road trauma trust
account, but also other funding streams, including from the government and the
private sector. Generally, medical research is the poor cousin for funding
streams from the private sector.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.