Webinar: Overview of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy

The National Strategy provides a national framework to build on Australia’s world leading research capability, improve coordination across the sector, and support the translation of research into real world impact for all Australians.

Developed through extensive engagement with the health and medical research sector, the strategy reflects a shared vision for the future of Australia’s research system.

This session walked attendees through the key themes, priorities and opportunities identified in the National Strategy, and what they mean for the sector.

Recorded on Friday 26 Jun 2026 10:00am.

Video transcript

Mr Duncan Young 0:57
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our webinar this morning. Thank you for joining us for this webinar on the National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

My name's Duncan Young. I'm with the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing in the Commonwealth. I'm the Chief Data Officer, I'm the First Assistant Secretary of the Evidence and Research Division, and I'm joined today by the CEO of the Health and Medical Research Office, Natasha Ploenges – part of my team, and also Professor Steve Wesselingh, the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

We're all really excited to be here today to, to talk you through our National Health and Medical Research Strategy. This is the first national strategy of its kind, and we're really excited to see that Minister release it recently and really wanted to acknowledge at the outset. the contribution that so many of you made to this strategy and bringing it together and acknowledge the work of Rosemary Huxtable as the Chair of our strategy.

We think you'll see as we go through this strategy is a great product of all of our work and reflects broadly across the sector, across jurisdictions and I think provides a great set of directions and vision for how to take us forward and create make Australia that the healthiest nation on the planet.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the Ngunnawal people who are the traditional owners and custodians of a land in which I'm joining from here today in Canberra and also acknowledge the Ngambri people who have had long connections for land here and acknowledge that we're broadcasting right across Australia. And so there are many different lands that we're broadcasting to and many different traditional owners.

And would like to call out that the strategy has what I think is a lovely and a really strong recognition statement in that of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It really calls out honestly that the impacts of colonisation have led to unfortunately great disparity in health and well being between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians. And this has been partly due to the ongoing experiences of racism in our health and medical system, including our health and medical research strategy.

And so we hope that the National Health and Medical Research Strategy really allows us a point to help us move forward and in moving forward, really acknowledging the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership involvement as researchers, but also to very close partnership throughout our research programme.

And we'll definitely touch on that more as we step through the strategy today and how the strategy can help us work towards the goals of closing the gap and embedding in culturally safe practises across our health and medical research sector.

So to I've got a sort of a simple job in presentation today. Natasha and Steve will do the, the bulk of the work. My key KPIs are to, to make sure I get the introductions right. I think I've ticked the box on that. I'll help facilitate a Q&A and a session at the end.

We've got plenty of time today, so please be ready to ask you questions and, and pose those to us. 
But we'll do our best to answer anything you put our way, but also to make sure that you're all out of here by 12 o'clock ready to watch the Socceroos put up a great game against Paraguay today. So, but that's it. That's probably all of the key things I need to do in my introduction. And so great pleasure I'll hand across to Natasha to introduce our presentation overview today, Natasha.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 4:45
Thank you very much, Duncan.

And I'm really pleased to have this next webinar, of course, that we're doing as part of what has now become a bit of a series of webinars in terms of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

So I really don't want to cover a lot of the content that you may have already have seen and heard from our previous from our previous webinars that have been held. So really this is just an opportunity then for us to do a a little bit of that scene setting to do a little bit of bringing you on the journey.

And in particular, for me, it's about letting you know how the consultations that had been undertaken had really been listened to and really helped to shape, not only mainly the draft strategy, but the draft when it then moved into the final strategy itself. So as part of this sort of bringing you on a short journey with us, really this slide is just to give you that that scene sitting around the Phase 1 and Phase 2 elements of the consultation process.

So the development of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy had really been done in 2 parts. So Phase 1 that you see on the left hand side of that slide was really focused on that evidence gathering through a combination of commissioned reports. There were things like the workforce audit. There were also community focus groups as well.

And there had also been desktop reviews of both national and international health and medical research strategies looking at health and medical research commercialisation and funding landscape in Australia as well.

In addition to those sort of desktop reviews and other initial research activities, there had been a significant number of one-on-one and round table meetings that have been held with stakeholders that have been conducted by the Chair - being Rosemary Huxtable – and members of the National Strategy development team who was supporting Rosemary in her work. There had also been webinars undertaken over that time as well.

Now we really moved from Phase 1 of that development into the Phase 2 on the 27th of August when the draft National Strategy itself had been published. So moving into that Phase 2 process really provided the opportunity for the Chair to really continue close engagement with the sector and to really refine what had been prepared in that draft and create that final strategy.

So, in collaboration with state and territory governments, round tables had been held with each state and territory. It had about 150 participants and it represented government, peak bodies, academia, industry, health services and consumers and communities. As part of those round tables, there had also been targeted consultation and there had of course been that formal submission process and it was more than 300 submissions had been provided.

Now I won't go through the questions on this slide, but this is just to again bring people along the journey on the consultation process and more specifically the submission process that had been that have been provided.

So the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing Consultation Hub had been used to provide that opportunity for submissions to be provided. Now there were opportunities to not only do that as written submissions, there was also the chance to be able to do them as submitting video submissions as well. And different ways for people to be able to engage with the questions and to really think about how the draft could be reshaped and create that final.

The public consultation, as I said, had opened, well you can see on this slide, had opened on the 27th of August and it closed in early October. Responses had been received right across the country. So each state and territory had responses and had strong responses from them. But for us, I guess and for Rosemary, it really was a demonstration that that the strategy and the development of the strategy itself really spoke to it being a truly National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

Now you can see on this slide, we were trying to represent the sort of breadth of respondents, but also to give you a sense of where there were greater number of responses that have been provided as part of that consultation process. So you see the majority of responses did come from academics and researchers.

The responses were also provided through a variety of healthcare professions and professionals, also through the public and also through philanthropy as well as part of as part of that consultation and submission process. There had been quite a bit of feedback, not only in terms of really specific topics and content, but also around how the National Strategy document itself could actually be shaped or better shaped.

So when it came to scene-setting in particular, there had been feedback that there needed to be greater strengthening of the scene-setting in the strategy itself to more clearly articulate the need to actually have a health and medical research strategy, but also to include a really honest assessment of the current landscape itself and the challenges that are also being faced by Australia and by the sector.

There was also feedback and advice that they really needed to also highlight where there are strengths as part of the strategy. So the strengths in Australia that we have and the opportunities that could be focused on.

With translation and implementation, there had been feedback that it was really necessary to clearly identify actions that address the distinct needs of translation into healthcare systems and policies, and that that is distinct from the translation of research findings into commercial solutions as well. There had also been feedback about the importance of embedding research into healthcare settings, ensuring sufficient resources and funding as well as part of that now, there had also been feedback provided about needing to more strongly address funding challenges and long term sustainability.

As well as making sure that it was really clear in the need to support ownership of the strategy by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities and to really find a way to incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives throughout the entire strategy.

Now with this slide, again, you'll see data as a critical enabler, as one of the first key themes in this slide. As part of that feedback it had been provided that more work was actually required to have a data ecosystem that operates effectively. And that meant addressing barriers like fragmented data infrastructure and access to data and governance arrangements as well.

The importance of cultural change in the sector, including supporting things like collaboration over competition in the sector was really seen as something that needed to be strengthened and really considered as part of a final National Strategy.

And also really increasing our risk appetite for data sharing and alternative research pathways and building a really dynamic workforce that really helped people in this space be able to move between different sectors at different times and at different stages of their career as well.

So moving between academia, healthcare settings and industry and really trying to embed that as part of the culture as well. There had also been some views expressed about making sure that the strategy - or recommending that the strategy - include further detail on implementation and some of the specific actions that could be undertaken, particularly in the early years of the strategy itself.

As we know the strategy is a 10 year strategy. So really about having some specific actions that could be addressed in the early years, but also the metrics that could be used and referring to metrics and making sure that was also clear in a final strategy as well.

Now in terms of governance arrangements and and advisory work, there was really strong support for a National Strategy Advisory Council that had been proposed not only to look at monitoring progress of the strategy, but also potentially looking at ways that a National Strategy Advisory Council could help shape that priority setting going forward as well.

Now that was to give you a bit of that sort of high level feedback that had been provided or or and considered as part of the national strategy development.

Moving from the draft to the final, there were some particular cohorts or particular topic areas that we also had received and that Rosemary had received specific feedback on, which I'll cover off in the next few slides.

Now this one is in relation to consumers and community. So there had been feedback received for the draft strategy, which had then been subsequently really considered by Rosemary and used to actually revise and create that final strategy. And part of that was about really looking at and strengthening consumer and community involvement as part of as part of the final strategy.

Now that included making sure that there was consideration of consumers and community being involved in research design and processes, but also having roles in horizon scanning, priority setting, also in governance and as research collaborators as well.

There was also a clear feedback as well about needing to make sure that there was alignment with existing national policies too.

Now, I won't go into what is in the final National Strategy. Steve will talk to that in in detail. But certainly the final strategy does have that dedicated outcome area, particularly for consumers and communities.

Some of the key feedback that had been provided in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research and researchers was that there needed to be a greater strength and a greater focus put around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research leadership and research leadership and perspectives. And having that across the entire National Health and Medical Research strategy, in addition to having a specific focus area as well.

It was also really clearly heard that there needed to be that direct alignment with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. And that a final strategy really ought to take into consideration and and focus on Indigenous data sovereignty and governance practises, but also Indigenous cultural and intellectual property as well.

There had also been really clear and strong feedback in terms of Regional, Rural and Remote (RRR) communities and that there was a really strong need to see locally led and place based and culturally safe research. That is designed with communities and also led by Regional, Rural and Remote researchers, and that was a really clear feature.

As part of the feedback through those consultations and the submissions as well, the need to also embed triple R perspectives into the National strategy and across the National Strategy was also heard. Part of that had been addressed.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 20:41
And again, Steve might talk to this a little bit later on in the webinar, but really about having that dedicated regional rural and remote implementation guide that brings together actions throughout the National Strategy, not only in the early years, but across that 10-year duration as well.

The health and medical research workforce was also another area for a clear feedback as part of those consultations. There was feedback in particular about really needing to look at and strengthen addressing things like job insecurity and what was seen as unstable career pathways for the workforce, particularly for early and mid career researchers, but also to support gender equity as well.

Looking for and finding ways to try and help and support and ready the health and medical research workforce for future challenges, including in regional areas, and really finding ways to foster research and industry partnerships and greater support for clinician and public health researchers as well as Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander research workforce and the broader workforce diversity matters as well.

Now what I'll do is hand over to Steve to talk about the actual final strategy in detail. Thanks, Steve.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 22:33
Thanks very much.

And what we have here is, is the final Strategy and this was released by the Minister a few weeks ago in Adelaide. And, and I think it's a strategy that that we're very proud of and I'll just work out how to advance my slides. There we go.

And you can see here the Strategy at a glance and, and a very aspirational vision at the top of the Strategy. 'Australia: the healthiest nation driven by research and innovation, delivering for all.'

So really being aspirational about where we're heading, highlighting that this is absolutely driven by research and innovation. So making us a healthier nation driven by research and innovation and then acknowledging the really important aspects of equity in that this has to be delivered for everyone right across the country.

And so you can then see the structure of the strategy with values on the one side, which go to impact sustainability, equity, quality and integrity.

And you know, really important part of that is trust in science and collaboration and partnership so that we're doing this together across the country.

And you can see in terms of the goals, they relate directly to the vision leading the world in health outcomes, deliver equity so we leave no one behind.

That we drive national prosperity and security, that we advance excellence and really important word, their excellence in research and innovation, secure a resilient and sustainable health system so that we're underpinning the health system as it grows into the future and strengthening regional and global partnership. So that we we're not ignoring the rest of the world. We're actually participating in the global health and medical research activity.

It has 5 focus areas, and I'll be going through those in more detail on the next slide.

And then importantly, it has the enablers and Natasha already mentioned workforce is one of those critical enablers. Obviously funding is a critical enabler of health and medical research.

The sort of massive changes that we're seeing in data and digital technology and AI are obviously an enabler and the infrastructure that we develop across the country in a coordinated manner is one of the enablers.

And then at, at the bottom, we have the governance and, and we allude to the National Strategy Advisory Council and I'll talk a little bit about that later. And then obviously we need to maintain evaluation and develop metrics for, for evaluation.

So here we have the 5 focus areas and outcome areas and you can see the first one, 'Strengthening a vibrant research system that delivers for the nation.' And importantly 1.1 is Discovery and basic research.

So the Strategy absolutely acknowledges that right at the beginning of the pipeline, right at the beginning of that continuum, going from discovery to public health and policy and products, you know, discovery and basic science underpins the strength of Australian health and medical research.

Importantly, right at the beginning, we need to ensure that we're setting priorities and we need to do that by looking at the future and having a clear view of the horizon and where we're going and what's going to what does the future of health and medical research look like in Australia.

The other point in the in focus area 1 was a clear acknowledgement that perhaps in the past, you know, we had probably concentrated on lots of small activities across the country, a lot of smaller granting activities.

And that maybe we needed to look as part of this strategy at bigger collaborative platforms and networks across the country to support translation and capacity building and discovery research.

So that was a really important sentiment that we needed to be bigger and better and, and obviously we need national coordination, governance and evaluation. And that needs to be both within the health and medical research sector and between the health and medical research sector and the rest of those activities across the country.

It was very clear that we needed a focus area on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

We acknowledge that the gap between the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the rest of the country is still there and that needs to be closed and closing that gap will only a bit be achieved through research and innovation.

And so we really wanted to ensure that there was a focus area that was Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander led, worked on the ways of knowing and being and doing from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, participated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and acknowledged that even though we have terrific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership across the country, we need to grow that and we need to grow the workforce and the capacity that exists within that community. And really importantly, make sure that the early and mid-career Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are coming up and taking on leadership roles.

The next focus area, 'Deliver high value care through timely translation and implementation of research into healthcare policy and practice'.

So that's really saying that we need to make sure that that discovery continuum moves our really great discovery and basic science research into improving healthcare. And we need to do that primarily actually by embedding research in the health system.

But important parts of that are things like the clinical trial ecosystem, health services and public health research, the involvement of consumers and community in research. And our consumer statement obviously highlights that.

And importantly, if we believe that health and medical research makes healthcare better, and that when we have research embedded in healthcare, that the healthcare at that point is better, then we have to make sure that there's an, there's an equity view here and that we have research embedded in healthcare right across the country.

And that's why we've highlighted place based Regional Rural and Remote research because that will improve the healthcare in the, in the regions, in rural and remote. So we need to make sure that it's not only Melbourne and Sydney, but it's right across the country.

We need to acknowledge that we need to play a part in Australia's productivity. We need to play a part in building Australia's economy. And we currently are. And there is so much happening in that movement into startups, into larger companies and the developments of drugs and the developments of devices and diagnostics and IT and, and this focus area 4 really highlights that we need to make sure that we continue to develop that area.  

And, and an important part of that is our sovereign capability. And I think we, we certainly saw during COVID that there were aspects of our sovereign capability that, that we're limited. And we need to make sure that we have the sovereign capability to meet the challenges of the future.

And we need to make sure that within that environment that capital and risk investment happens so that we see the development of, of more CSLs and more startups and companies producing drugs, devices, IT and so on.

And then the final area really goes to the view that I mentioned previously, that we need to think about this from a global point of view. And we need to firstly be global leaders. We need particularly to be regional leaders. We need to accept our responsibility in the Pacific and the Indo Pacific area and play a really important role in that area. We need to make sure that we understand the global competition and that we work within that competitive area.

And then finally, we need to ensure that we're looking to the future and understanding what the really critical issues that are going to stress us in the future. And particularly that relates to environmental sustainability and resilience. And again, that goes in part to our leadership in the in the region.

In terms of the impacts of climate change on the region. If you look at the 'Enablers', workforce is critical, funding is critical data, digital technologies and infrastructure.

And I'll be talking a little bit about those in a minute.

So here are the actions in each of the Focus Areas and Enablers.

And, and you can see that we're highlighting, particularly in the discovery and basic science research, two early aspects.

One is thinking about whether we've been too conservative in our funding and that maybe we need to think about high risk, high reward funding.

And also, I think everyone's acknowledged over time that the MREA and the MRFF, there's a bit of inconsistency there in terms of indirect research costs.

And I think we've had some announcements already that have indicated that we need to correct that so that particularly the independent MRIs will get indirect research cost support both for MREA funding and MRFF funding.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 33:46
We need to particularly establish a national priority and horizon scanning and establish the National Strategy Advisory Council to oversee the whole process.

I mentioned investing in a series of, of platforms and networks that are, that are large across the country. And I think when we're thinking about early and mid career researchers, I certainly believe that those platforms and networks have the capacity to support early and younger researchers within those platforms and networks. And I think we have been working towards this.

But the unified management of the MREA or the NHMRC and the Medical Research Future Fund to a more efficient and effective funding continuum, I think is something that we'd all like to see.

And we're certainly working towards that.

But I think the Strategy highlights how important that is to develop.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Focus Area: we certainly want to strengthen the grant processes, particularly working with communities and ensuring that this is community and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander led.

And as I mentioned before, certainly accelerating the workforce aspects, recognising particularly the knowledge and experience of community researchers in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and also accelerating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entrepreneur and career development.

We really in Focus Area 3 want to look at how do we continue to embed research in the health system.

And we believe we can do that by looking at clinician researchers, by looking at the research translation centre model, by absolutely expanding our clinical trial aspects and in the first instance expanding our clinical trial networks, which I think have worked really well.

Make sure that we – through our consumer statement – look really carefully at consumer renumeration and reimbursement and recognition in research.

And in terms of Regional, Rural and Remote, make sure – and we are this is starting already – looking at investment in rural health innovation hubs, rural health centres of excellence, expanding tele-trials and targeting the remote health implementation guide, which I'll talk about on the next slide or the slide after that.

We need to look at the research industry partnership integration and particularly equip researchers with commercialisation and investor activities, establish the Life Science and Health Technology Council and look at ways of identifying and funding research that's ready for commercial investment, particularly through incubation funding, which the MRFF has done quite successfully and obviously we'll need to continue to do that.

We've also put up the idea of establishing a scheme where Commonwealth funding could be matched by philanthropic and private sector funding. And I think that's a really innovative idea. And in some ways the brain cancer fund was a little bit like that.

But I think we can enhance that, and that could be a really interesting way forward to bring more philanthropic and private sector funds into health and medical research.

We need to work on our global partnerships. I think we already do bilateral and multilateral global partnerships pretty well and we are seen across the world as a leader, but I think we can enhance that even more.

As part of resilience and sustainability, we need to look at ways of reducing our reliance on animal technologies. And I think particularly in the tox area where you know, tox testing could probably utilise far less animals – or in some cases I think we can move to drugs being toxic tested with no animals at all.

So I think that that is an area of interest and, and we need to really think about climate change.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 38:39
In terms of the enablers, we need to be able to describe our health and medical research work workforce. So if we're going to develop a plan, we need to know what the workforce looks like.

I don't think we can do that right now.

And, but I do think that with some extra work and particularly working with the ABS and PLIDA and other databases, I think we can get a much better view of our workforce and then understand what a workforce plan should look like.

In terms of funding. We're talking about an annual National Health and Medical Research Investment Statement about the resources that are available and where those resources are going.

I think data is, is one of the key aspects of a sustainable health system and and a health system that is self learning and continuing to improve. And we don't yet have all of our data systems connected.

We don't have enough connected state and federal data systems and and we're not utilising all of the data that's available through our registries, through our hospitals, through the PBS and so on.

So really a strong push to drive our research, and particularly our health services and public health research, through data and digital technologies.

And in terms of infrastructure, we believe that there's probably a number of players in the infrastructure space like NCRIS, Department of Industry, Department of Health, obviously NHMRC and MRFF. And we need to bring that together with a road map.

And we need to be sitting around the table with all of those people in the room to ensure that our infrastructure is well coordinated.

In terms of governance and evaluation, I mentioned the establishment of the National Strategy Advisory Council and also this is a 10 year strategy.

But actually when we think about it, we're really thinking about the next few years, what are we going to implement quickly and how we going to look at that implementation and ensure we're going in the right direction. So we're not going to wait for 10 years to evaluate what's going on. We need to have ongoing evaluation to make sure that we are truly on track and responding to what are going to be some existential threats from across the world.

And also in terms of, you know, the impact of things like AI and others that we'll need to be dealing with. So we have developed an Implementation Roadmap and this actually contains quite a lot of what I've already said, but more in a way of understanding how it's going to be phased.

And so you can see here Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and the red box I guess is the box that you might be most interested in. Really it's Phase 1 and Phase 2 that are going to happen pretty quickly.

So we need to establish national priority setting processes. We need to have a coordinated approach to horizon scanning. We need to set up the council, we need to develop and co-design the triple R implementation plan and I'll show some of that on the next slide.

And we need to look at evaluation and work out what are we actually going to measure. We need to design and develop the workforce infrastructure plans, consolidate and streamline funding data sets and map existing data sets to support the development of the data plan, which I think is a really critical area.

Some of the things that we can do pretty quickly and actually have done some of them, like implement a consistent approach to supporting indirect costs.

That's actually already being started.

We want to invest in high risk, high reward research and we need to develop some funding streams around that.

We are moving the MREA and the MRFF together, but we want to move to unifying the management of those into the NHMRC. And I think that's going to be very exciting.

And, and we have already clear plans in looking at incubator funding programmes to reinvest in research that's already being supported by the MREA and the MRFF. But research that's gone really well.

And how do we make sure that that research then moves into improving prosperity and in terms of being developed and commercialised.

When we get to Phase 2, we're really looking at some of the next steps from Phase 1 like the research translation centres, the clinical trial networks, telehealth, particularly in triple R areas.

And we're developing our investment statements and our bilateral and multilateral arrangements.

So really just moving along the things that I talked about earlier, we're rolling out a harmonised MREA–MRFF process.

We're implementing the national guidelines on consumer enumeration and reimbursement, really important and highly desirable.

And, and looking again at the issues of environmental sustainability and particularly those areas that we're very excited about like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, triple R, non-animal technologies and the commercialisation and the fast tracking of our activities.

And then you can see that we go through to ensuring that we're delivering on our priorities, we're evaluating how we're going and we look at other advanced other areas that we need to advance as we go through from Phase 1 to Phase 3.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 45:04
It is critically important that we understand that with all of these phases, see that there are populations that that where there's inequity and that we need to focus on those populations and ensure that this is an equitable process and that we have equity in our health and medical research.

But more importantly, we have equity in health across the country. So we need to support career development and leadership and capacity of researchers from all parts of our sector, but particularly from those priority populations and recognise, as I've said, community researchers in grant assessments and research outputs.

We also need to ensure and work very closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities so we understand the cultural issues, we understand data sovereignty and we understand the the the needs of of those communities and have them intimately engaged in the research processes.

I was going to say next slide, but that's me. There we go.

And here what we have – and I'm not going to go through this in detail – but I did want to really highlight that we we've taken on board a lot of the feedback about regional, rural and remote.

And I did mention how this is an equity issue that if we want high quality health delivery in rural, regional, rural and remote areas, then we need to have research embedded in that healthcare delivery.

And then this just highlights how we are ensuring that we have triple R involvement and triple R research supported across the focus areas, across the areas of workforce funding, data and digital technology and infrastructure.

And actually, I think it's a terrific example of where the things that we've highlighted in the strategy can be seen to be really having an impact in an area where there is inequity and in an area where improvement can happen very rapidly.

And, and so you can think of all the things I've said and, and that sort of repeated on this slide, but you can see how they could very quickly improve the health and medical research activity in triple R areas.

And that will immediately, if you think about data or digital issues, if you think about workforce, that can immediately improve the healthcare delivery in those regions. So we're really excited about that and we have already and this goes to an important aspect of the strategy.

There are a number of parts of the strategy because it, you know, it took over a year to develop. There are a number of areas of the strategy that are already in train.

And so you know, there's already some NHMRC and MRFF activities around triple R that are already in train and about or have been very recently released. And so we're already following the guidance of the Strategy in terms of our activities and obviously we'll keep doing that.

So a number of you would have, I'm sure seen the SERD announcements or the Ambitious Australia document. And if you look at the SERD document, the strategic examination of research and development, you will have noticed that there's a series of pillars.

And one of the pillars is the health and medical pillar.

And really my reading of that and our discussions with SERD and the chair of SERD and Ian Chubb and others have, have indicated pretty clearly that we're sort of ahead of the game in a way when you think of all of those pillars and health and medical research pillar will be the National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

So I mean, we in a way have already indicated where we are in the SERD strategy and that diagram.

And so we're comfortable that we will be aligned with the activities that SERD have highlighted and that are documented in Ambitious Australia and that our strategy as one of those pillars with its governance will be able to play a really important role in research and development in the country.

So a lot of that still needs to play out obviously, and there are definitive decisions of government that still need to occur, but we're comfortable that we're in a strong position to play a role in R&D across the country.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 50:40
So I'd really like to emphasise that we see the National Health and Medical Research Strategy as a national document, not an NHMRC document, not an MRFF document, not a document from the Minister.

It's a document that has been developed across the country that is obviously funders like us are important part of it. But you know, all of you – as members of the national health and medical research workforce – are critical parts of it. The states are critical, philanthropy is critical and industry is critical. Communities absolutely underpin it from right across the country.

And I've emphasised particularly triple R and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, but all communities across the country are part of this.

So this is something we need to do together. We need to make sure that we lead sector change, enhance community and consumer involvement and cultural safety.

Natasha and I need to make sure that the MRFF, the MREA is working more and more closely together. And I think we are and we have a plan going forward.

We need to make sure that we continue to evaluate and promote a really strong national narrative because in the end, you know, we need continued government investment, we need continued community investment and industry investment to make this happen.

So we do have to have a narrative and we do need to have evaluation that supports that narrative because in the end the sort of social licence to do health and medical research determines the investment in health and medical research. 
And so we're really keen to do that.

And I think I mentioned at the beginning, the idea of doing this more nationally. And certainly those shared platforms and networks I think are going to be a really important part of that.

So I'm going to stop there questions and answers – not only me, but also Natasha and Duncan and I'm looking forward to your response.

Thank you very much.

Mr Duncan Young 53:02
Thanks Steve.

l'll just take down the slides so that we can maximise some screen real estate. OK, great.

We've already got some questions rolling in.

Let start with a bit of a warm-up question a broad one.

So maybe starting with you Steve, what differences do you think the Strategy will cause us to see in the next 5 to 10 years?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 53:35
So firstly, I think clarity is really important.

So you know, I go around the country talking to lots of groups, and people I think are keen to understand the direction and clarity in terms of how we're making funding decisions, what areas are critical, what parts of the workforce are important to grow and so on.

So firstly, I think clarity about the direction of health and medical research in the country and how we're going to do that. And obviously there's lots of players.

So none of it, you know, is a guarantee, but I do think it does help that and gives particularly early and mid career researchers a view of where we're going.

Mr Duncan Young 54:24
Thanks Steve. What about you Natasha? What do you expect to see?

Ms Natasha Ploenges 54:31
Partially some of the things that Steve has also talked about.

But I think what I'd not only expect to see, but also really hope to see, is that greater collaboration and collaboration on a range of fronts.

So not just having us all, you know, working shoulder to shoulder, which is partially what I'm really hoping will come out of the national strategy is that that all across the sector, we can see that there is a way forward and that we are going to actually do that together.

But also collaboration in terms of finding new and different ways for us to potentially look at ways of jointly funding. And when I say we, of course, I don't just mean the Commonwealth with maybe philanthropic organisations or with industry, but we're say industry of course, and philanthropy may do a greater collaboration as well in terms of funding.

So that's one of the key things I'm hoping to see in the first instance too.

Mr Duncan Young 55:46
Thanks, Natasha. If I can add something to that as well. 
I think what we've seen through the development of this strategy is that we can all work together to produce a combined national strategy.

And a number of the actions under the strategy, call for us to work together to produce some of the things that Steve highlighted, a workforce plan, a research infrastructure road map.

And I think the production of these things collectively and together will really support us making sure that we join up parts of the research funding system.

So one of the things that I've seen and I've heard is that sometimes we're not as coordinated as we could be between funding through education portfolio, industry portfolio jurisdictions.

And so having these things where we can talk more as one voice from a research sector, I think will be really powerful.

And I think it also it helps really position research where we want it to be, which is health and medical research being a real sort of jewel in Australia rather than being seen it as a cost element in a health and medical portfolio.

And so I think that's a real opportunity for us if we continue showing this ability to lean in and and work together.

Mr Duncan Young 57:05
Second question, indirect costs is included under outcome Area 1.1 which talks about discovery and basic science.

Is that the intention here - are indirect cost support changes are only limited to discovery basic science? 
That's probably one for you Natasha because it relates to the MRFF.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 57:29
Thanks. Thanks very much, Duncan, as I see you waving your arm to try and get your lights back on, I think so. And I've occasionally tried to wheel myself back to make sure the lights don't go off either.

So just in terms of yeah, the indirect research costs, or research administration costs in particular when it comes to the MRFF, of course, this is a new activity for us in particular to have funding announced as a particular stream for that.

So it is something that we are exploring.

I'm really open to and I'm wanting us to explore what it looks like across the across the entire research pipeline and continuum, not just in that basic and discovery research space.

One of the reasons for that, of course is that the MRFF does funding across the pipeline, but it has a lot more of a focus on the translation side of things. So we really do want to look at it across that entire pipeline. Thanks.

Mr Duncan Young 58:43
Thanks, Natasha.  

A third question maybe back to you, Steve. You mentioned priority populations a number of times across the presentation and it's been well received.

But can you elaborate on how do we define priority populations? What is a priority population?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 59:02
I mean, I think my definition of a priority population is populations where there's essentially there are inequities and we see healthcare not being delivered in the best possible manner.

And I did highlight two in particular, I acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

And I, you know, I don't apologise for that rural, regional and remote, but I also noticed on the chat, you know, people highlighting out of metropolitan areas and again, you know, access to healthcare and out of metropolitan areas, you know, there is inequity there.

And there probably are solutions that health and medical research, well, there are solutions health and medical research can help with.

And then, you know, obviously we are a multicultural country. We have people where there are, you know, different languages, different cultural aspects and we need to absolutely understand that.

And I think, you know, it was highlighted during COVID. That they were really important issues in areas to look at.

And again, I think the advantage of having the council and the evaluation is to make sure that we are ticking those boxes.

And if we're missing groups, then we need to acknowledge that and work on that.

So, and you know, actually Women's Health is another example where, you know, we've probably dropped the ball a little bit in the past and we need to make sure that women are getting the same quality of health care and the same amount of health and medical research investment into issues that particularly apply to women.

Mr Duncan Young 1:00:49
Natasha, did you want to add anything to that?

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:00:55
The only thing that I would add in terms of priority populations is, is really looking at from a medical research future fund perspective.

So in our current set of priorities for the MRFF, we do articulate priority populations in there, but we also have a range of grant opportunities where it might be about a particular area.

So using a triple R as an example: where there is a real focus on having 50% or more of the investigators being located in in triple R areas.

So it really does depend on the type of research, but very much has been a real focus of the MRFF to look at priority populations and to try and you know, either pull those different levers for us to try and address it as part of that too.

Mr Duncan Young 1:02:00
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Natasha. Thanks, Steve.

Steve, you commented on high risk, high reward funding streams and there was a question about how is this different from the Ideas Grants scheme, which is already targeting high risk, high reward projects.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:02:16
Yeah, so great question.

And in fact, when we designed the Ideas scheme, we thought we were designing a high risk, high reward scheme.

But actually to be honest, what we've got I think is, you know, some really high risk ideas, but there's a lot of really just great science being funded by the Ideas Grant scheme.

And perhaps our peer reviewers and the NHMRC are being a little bit conservative there.

So we'd like to develop some mechanisms to perhaps identify those truly innovative ideas, you know, that have a reasonable chance of failing, but you know, if you pull it off, it'll be really, really exciting.

And so some of the ideas might, some of the ways forward might be actually to use the Ideas scheme, but to have a sort of golden ticket view.

So peer reviewers can, you know, will be allocated some golden tickets and they can put a golden ticket on a couple of grants that they think fulfil this high risk, high reward design.

And then there, you know, there there are also other ways, you know, the APHRA and DARPA and other LEAP which welcome do have also developed other ways of ensuring that you attract the very high risk applications and that the review process endorses that process.

So, we have thought about lots of ways of doing that, but I do think we need to change what we do a little bit in order to identify those.

Can I ask answer another question because I did note that Anne Kelso's on and you know, Anne obviously has had a huge impact on NHMRC.

And so I really want to acknowledge that Anne's joined the webinar and has asked a question about the relationship between investigator driven research and priority driven research.

And obviously, you know, the vast majority of NHMRC funding is investigator driven.

And so what we're really doing is asking investigators to tell us their very best ideas and then we peer review that and select the best. And, and that applies obviously to Ideas and to Investigators and Clinical Trials and CREs and so on.

And I, I don't anticipate a change in the nature of investigator driven and priority driven research. 
I think as you know, the MRFF probably does a little bit more or does a lot more priority driven research and we do a lot more investigator driven.

I think the advantage of bringing us together is that we can actually look at that continuum and you know, and make sure there's no duplication.

And in fact, I think by reducing duplication, we can see increased funding for investigator driven as well as for priority driven. So that we're so that we're reducing the degree of overlap.

And, and I think where there are opportunities for priority driven research to utilise some of our investigator driven schemes, I think that also will be very cool.

In other words, we could have you know, you know when we run our Investigator round we could have parts of it as calls for particular priority areas as well.

So I think that coming together and the synergy between the two of us, the reduction in duplication I think is really exciting.

Mr Duncan Young 1:05:58
Yeah, thanks Steve. Thanks Steve and thanks, thanks Anne.

And certainly, but one of the things really clear my strategy was that at there's a lot of things we need to balance in terms of our research.

We need investigator driven research. There is a place for priority driven research.

We need discovery in basic science work. We also need translational work.

And so we need mechanisms where that allow us to consider and balance those.

And it's often not as sort of black and white as NHMRC's MREA does one and HMRO and the MMRF does another. Actually there's a fair bit of quite broad or grant and opportunities in the HMRO Medical Research Future Fund.

And often they are quite shaped by the best investigator ideas within and at boundaries of priorities.

And so I think those things will continue and pleasingly our I guess the size of a pie has already increased through the government announcements of additional funding, which is a good thing.

Mr Duncan Young 1:07:10
Probably it's a bit of a follow on from our previous question around the high risk, high reward.

There was some really useful and interesting comments about the development of the Angel investor community in Australia and for people looking to invest and or partner with government in co investing.

Just a bit of a request: Where should people reach out to if they are looking for opportunities to co invest?

There's also other questions about philanthropy and philanthropy investment and I know we have a great track record there, the Brain Cancer Mission stands out as one where I think 50 million of government funding was matched by about 70 million of philanthropic funding. So we're very connected there.

But yeah, Natasha, what's the sort of avenue and maybe even mentioning some of the ways that our advisory kind of groups which bring in some of knowledge in that space.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:08:10
Yeah, thanks very much, Duncan.

Maybe I'll start with some of our advisory groups and, and in some ways this also goes to answer some of the other questions about the connections as well between the NHMRC with the MREA as well as the Health and Medical Research Office with the Medical Research Future Fund.

So we have established joint advisory groups, but between the NHMRC and the department for the MRFF so that we can have that really great breadth and depth of experience and advice, but also making sure that there is consistent advice that's being shared for both, for both the funders.

Part of the reason for me flagging that in the first instance, of course, is about that sort of greater unity is being done already and through a range of ways that we're making sure that that's happening.

Now going to that question of philanthropy in particular, one of those joint advisory groups that we have is the Industry Philanthropy, Philanthropy and Commercialisation Committee.

So we do have a group that is specifically established to help provide that advice to Steve and me and Duncan to be able to work through what the issues are, how we might be able to best engage with where some of the barriers might be in terms of our individual schemes and how we can really reach out and make not only a bigger difference, but maybe a better ways of doing that those engagements.

Now in the first instance in terms of reaching out to us, and we probably should have had a slide in, in retrospect, we probably should have added a slide with our contact details.

But reaching out to the Health and Medical Research Office or reaching out to NHMRC in the first instance is a great way to do some of that connection. And we'd be more than happy to then have conversations and maybe work with our joint advisory groups as well.

Mr Duncan Young 1:10:31
Thanks, Natasha.

So yeah, definitely trying to make sure that there's no wrong door to people.

And yes we're connecting between the NHMRC and the Health and Medical Research Office multiple times a week.

And so if you come one way then we'll connect it up between the two organisations. There's a few questions which probably we don't have final answers on or complete answers on at this stage.

We had a bit of a balance here between do we get out as soon as we can after the release of this strategy and talk to you about what's in the strategy and what you know about it?

Or do we talk to you later after more decisions have been made on implementation?

We've gone with a former and we're out early. And so a lot of it for consideration of, of next steps and implementation aren't finalised. But we can step through some of these questions and tell you what we think or what we know.

But, but often these things won't be final positions yet, certainly not the positions of the Commonwealth government or other of parties involved.

So, one of those questions and which has come in is about membership of the councils.

Like how will the councils be formed that are mentioned in the strategy, the Strategy Advisory Council, the Life Science and Health Technology Council? Will there be open nomination processes or will it be by invitation? What's the anticipated time frame?

This is a question but we don't have an answer to yet for the government. The Commonwealth government is definitely seeking our advice and input into these processes for their consideration, but also seeking other views and other input into that process.

What I did want to pick up on this question though, is, but there's also some work and engagement going on between us and the Department of Industry with the Ambitious Australia Report and some of the broader governance proposals across broader health and medical research, and trying to make sure that things are joined up there and complementary and not duplicative.

And so that's what we'll be working on together over the coming time.

But any other comments on governance that either of you would like to make?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:12:57
No, only that I think we'll also obviously be talking to Council and AMRAB about their views on that as well and moving forward.

Mr Duncan Young 1:13:15
And absolutely working out the, the roles of how they, they complement each other there as well.

Steve, will NHMRC be doing funding calls for each focus area during the period of the strategy?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:13:23
Certainly the strategy will be guiding NHMRC. And so I think over the 10-year period I would be surprised if we didn't address the areas that are listed within the strategy.

And as I mentioned, there are actually a number that we're already, we either have announced or we have in train, or our committees are talking about. So I know our Indigenous Advisory Group is already talking about some aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

And you know, we're talking to our other advisory committees about other aspects that apply to them like commercialisation or philanthropy.

So, I think part of the evaluation will be to go through the strategy and say, have we ticked that box? Did we do that? Is that sustainable and how are we going?

Mr Duncan Young 1:14:20
Thanks Steve, question beyond the advisory roles, who's responsible for implementing the strategy?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:14:30
I think it's a really terrific question. As I mentioned, this is a whole of Australia strategy.

I do think the NHMRC and the MRFF have distinct responsibilities and so I'm not going to move away from that.

But I do think some of the things we're not going to be able to achieve unless the states come to the party – and I've no doubt they will – but you know, certainly in terms of things like data sharing, embedding research in health, if you think, you know, you can, we need to embed research in all aspects, tertiary to primary health and public health.

But we need, you know, in terms of embedding research in hospitals in the states as an example, we need the states on board. We actually need the CEOs of the hospitals on board.

And so, you know, there is a lot of responsibility that goes across the board.

But I do acknowledge at the end of the day that, you know, Natasha and I will be very accountable.

Mr Duncan Young 1:15:41
Thanks Steve.

And yeah, I'd make sure that people heard there's an extension there, it's not just Commonwealth, it's not just state and territory governments, it's actually it's universities, it's research institutes, it's researchers, it's philanthropic organisations.

Unless we all work together here, we won't achieve as much as what we want to do. These are a very bold vision, as Steve pointed out, and we've got great ambitions as a country, but we'll achieve those collectively. Talking about our state and territory governments, what else could we say about the role of state and territory governments in the strategy and what are our expectations?

How will collaboration be enabled, enhanced?

Natasha, what what are your thoughts on the that interface?

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:16:37
Yeah, thanks very much Duncan.

I think in terms of the development of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy. So that was a key focus and something that Rosemary was really keen to be able to do.

So she had engaged with states and territories and had also really looked at where state and territories already had their own health and medical research strategies to see where there was complementarity in that space, to see if there were other things that could be connected with a national health and medical research strategy.

And I will say, personally, I've been in a number of discussions with the states and territories either through the national strategy development, but also subsequent to that.

And in some ways, I was really heartened to see that some of the things that had been already identified in the National Health and Medical Research Strategy and that the Commonwealth kind of is grappling with are some of the same things that a number of the states and territories are also grappling with.

So I felt heartened that there was that sort of consistency around some of those issues, and a real interest in being able to reach out and have conversations to test or clarify what some of those issues might be.

Now it won't be a surprise to anyone to say workforce is one of those things that that the Commonwealth is interested in, but also a number of states and territories had also identified that. So again, that's one of those sort of early areas for really good discussions.

And, and I've got to say, I'm pleased that through our joint Australian Medical Research Advisory Board and NHMRC Council meetings as well, that we have that really great opportunity through Steve with NHMRC Council where there are the connections with the Chief Health Officers as well.

So there's already some of those governance arrangements, building those connections.

But yeah, absolutely, more connections and collaboration can always be done in this space.

Mr Duncan Young 1:19:08
Steve, do you want to add?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:19:10
Yeah, I think the states are critical and I think as Natasha mentioned, the states, a number of states, well, I think all the states have their own strategies which you know do quite nicely align with what this strategy. I do think workforce is really important part there.

And there's been a number of questions about nurses, allied health and other groups and their participation in health and medical research and we've certainly thought about that a lot.

But a lot of that actually does in some ways – not necessarily the funding of the research fellowships, etcetera – but the way that a nurse or an allied health worker fits into the career structure and the way that our hospitals and primary care and others work.

And so that needs to be worked on, I think.

You know, I think it's always unfortunately been a bit clearer for medical researchers, but we would really like to see more researchers coming from the ranks of nurses and allied health and other biomedical engineers and others in the in the health workforce.

And we have to acknowledge the health workforce is mainly employed by states and so there needs to be some work there.

The other area I think is clinical trials.

Again, Australia does really well in clinical trials when we compare ourselves internationally, you know, 50% of FDA drugs have some clinical trial activity, 50% of the FDA approved drugs have some clinical trial activity in Australia. And so we we're really playing a big role in that area.

But again, a lot of that happens in state based organisations that is hospitals and other areas within states. And again, I think there's work to be done there and I think the one stop shop work there.

How that works with the states and how we can, you know, really have a very clear ethics framework I think is going to be quite exciting.

Mr Dunca Young 1:21:21
Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Natasha.

From my perspective, I think there's an opportunity here with the strategy to really leverage a number of our existing mechanisms for collaboration and coordination across the federation.

And recently signed National Health Reform Agreement embeds some responsibilities of all parties in this space.

And one which I'm personally passionate about and familiar with is the work of a health data collaborative, which is a cross jurisdictional committee that sits below that the health ministers, which I'm, I chaired as the Commonwealth chief data officer, but I have the chief data officers for all States and territories working on the National Health data system.

And what the strategy calls out is just how critical and important that health data system is for underpinning and supporting research, prioritising research, evaluating outcomes of research.

And so we're using mechanisms like that, which already exists to say, here is a common destination that we want to get to.

How do we work together and how do we leverage our existing capabilities to make sure that we can better bring together data that brings a view of primary care, acute care, national or, or data sets, understanding social determinants of health.

And so there's a lot of opportunities there. Having a strategy that we can all look at together really helps progress some of those conversations.

Another question, how will the strategy ensure that people with disability are systematically included in implementation and how will disability related research be embedded within the strategy? Who would like to jump in there?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:23:14
I guess just maybe I can say a few words about that.

Certainly since the NDIS has come into the Department of Health, we have taken it on board to look at that more carefully and we've had a number of presentations to Council and Research Committee about disability and disability research.

And so sort of, I have to apologise sort of early days when we probably should have done this earlier rather than wait for the NDIS to come into health.  

But it is an area of need, I believe. I think there is work to be done there.

There is a disability research fund that sits within Health that we don't have control of. But I do think we should look more broadly at the research that we fund and how we do that.

And, and we are, I guess what I'm saying is we're taking advice on that and learning.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:24:10
And I was just going to say I'd just also like to add to that too, that really of course the National Strategy itself reflects on a couple of things.

And, and one is about putting forward that action, about having a National Strategy Advisory Council, but also consideration as to who could make up that council and of course consumer and community as part of that. The National Strategy also does reflect on priority populations as well.

So I do think it's really pointing to that there could or should be a consideration of consumer community and that's the entire breadth of consumer and community, including people with disabilities being considered for being part of helping to drive where the strategy itself goes in future.

But I will also just add, in terms of the Medical Research Future Fund, as Steve had said, some of the conversations jointly between the department and NHMRC as a funder are early days in terms of where we are exploring what sort of research could or should be done.

But I am pleased that in terms of the Medical Research Future Fund, we have run grant opportunities very specifically in terms of disability, including intellectual disability.

And we've been really pleased to be able to work with the policy and programme areas in the department, as well as working really closely with the community itself to be able to help shape what that grant opportunity activity would look like as well.

So I think there's good starting points and continued work that that will need to happen in this space.

Mr Duncan Young 1:26:24
Thanks Natasha. Thanks Steve.

I think there'll also be strong links to our workforce strategy as well. And clearly value in having people with lived experience of disability being involved as researchers and part of our research approach in Australia.

Is there a dedicated funding to support the roll out of the strategy?

We know there's been some funding announced for indirect costs. What other resourcing will be available?

Natasha, maybe it's worth us talking a little bit about the increased resourcing and funding available or in the from the medical research future Fund and then we can touch more broadly on the funding for the strategy.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:27:19
Excellent. Thanks very much, Duncan. If you're happy for me to kick that off.

So Duncan might go into might go into a bit more detail as well.

But there was a range of funding that had been announced as part of the most recent federal budget that does really connect and align with the National Health and Medical Research Strategy itself.

And that's including, you know, new measures that do touch on or align to multiple focus areas in the National Strategy.

So that's things like advanced technology delivering greater equity of health outcomes, increasing impact through translation and promising research and also ensuring sustainability of discovery research.

So the Medical Research Future Fund is only part of those more recent announcements in the federal budget.

So I'll perhaps talk about the MRFF ones in particular and Duncan might like to touch on some of the other ones as well.

But with the MRFF, it was about $500 million over 4 years that had been announced. And that's commencing from – just looking at the date – from about next week, so from the 1st of July 2026.

So that will build up over time over the four years.

And when we get to 2030–31, that's when the MRFF will then hit its new funding top up, which is going to be $350 million additional money annually, to make the MRFF $1 billion per year ongoing from that point.

In terms of some of the specific activities that are captured as part of that budget announcement or budget activity, we have already talked about the indirect costs of research or research administration costs, however you like to describe it.

So that is already one component, but there are other parts and one of those is a new arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions mission itself.

There is also increased funding to really focus on promising research projects and really trying to bridge that gap at the at the far end of the research pipeline.

So where the sector will often refer to it as 'a valley of death' when you get to that really great promising research that's been done, but a little bit more money is needed to be able to get it over the line and really get it into that translation into practice or into commercialisation.

So there's also funding that's been provided specifically for that activity as well through the MRFF.

And there is also additional funding as well to deliver that sort of large-scale step change in National Research priorities. And that includes funding particularly for precision health research and also Australian cancer research as well.

So a bit of an overview of a range of the funding very specifically announced in terms of the MRFF itself. Thanks, Duncan.

Mr Duncan Young 1:31:09
Thanks Natasha.

On other funding announcements, I'd just like to acknowledge as well that the government's invested in the next stage of the National One Stop Shop for clinical trials and human research, which Steve mentioned earlier.

So yeah, that's a really exciting initiative supported by an inter jurisdictional policy reform group chaired by Emeritus Professor Ian Chubb.

And so really looking to support the efficiency of conducting clinical trials within Australia, including when they're across borders, but also supporting the integrated data system that can really support or research and outcomes from those clinical trials.

So it's a really exciting part and definitely something which was called out in the National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

And what, what I think we'll see in coming years is decisions, whether it's through funding already allocated to NHMRC or MRFF or through other government announcements of funding to take forward specific things out of a strategy where the remit falls within the responsibilities of those entities or the Commonwealth government where obviously both in NHMRC and the department funded by government to do national work about.

And some of that funding will go towards our work on supporting parts of a strategy and taking things forward or in that strategy.

There hasn't been a specific budget measure sought or ought or received to set up an implementation office or something for the strategy, but something that can be considered in time. And what's needed to take that forward.

But as we've mentioned multiple times, the funding doesn't just need to happen in the department where I see it or in NHMRC.

It's something which we all need to think about what resources are required to take forward other parts of the strategy in our own domains.

And yeah, there is considerable funding now between MRFF and NHMRC, the medical research endowment account is over $2 billion a year now, which well targeted and well invested will make a massive change over the next 5–10 years.

All right.

Switching back to our next question, can we confirm the definition of RRR in the strategy is of a Monash medical model definition of MMM three to seven?

Steve, Natasha, any comments on that?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:34:03
Yes. So we will be using the Triple M model in order to define triple R.

I don't want to give you the exact definition over the screen because I'll probably get it wrong, but it will be very clear when the applications are called for.

But it will be using the Monash model in terms of defining rural, regional and remote.

Mr Duncan Young 1:34:30
Excellent.

There's a question that's reasonably long around clinical quality registries and highlighting their value as a significant health research data asset and raising question.

There's a review underway at the moment and talking about uncertainty of funding beyond July 2027 and how does this fit into the National Health and Medical Research Strategy and the infrastructure road map.

I can probably make some comments on these some. So national clinical quality registry strategy sits under my remit in the department.

And so the budget, sorry, the government did make a sizeable investment over three years, about $40 million to support existing clinical quality registries and establish some new clinical quality registries. And we're conscious that was a time limited investment.

And so with any time limited investment, there's a decision point at the end of it where the government needs to make choices on what investment to make from that point in time and what the next steps are.

And so we as the department are undertaking some reviews and consultation exercises to try and gain the best information we can to feed into our advice to government our recommendations to government.

I think where the National Health and Medical Research Strategy and in particular the infrastructure road map becomes invaluable is to really articulate and have the different parts of our data system best work together and can best fit together and how we can get really maximise the value of them.

In the past, it's probably been quite a bit of siloed investment, or pieces which all provide some value in their own rights.

But how could we maximise more broadly?

And so we are doing some work at the moment around how do we bring data from a clinical quality registry into our nationally integrated data assets.

So working with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and going well, how do you supercharge the value of that great data already collected by connecting it up with a range of other population data and then be able to and also use for broader population data sets to be able to understand it across the population.

So it's certainly something we do see value in the clinical quality registries. We think they're really important, yeah, to really please lean into those engagement and consultation processes to help us give it the best picture together, to provide advice to government.

Steve, did you want to add anything in the quality register?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:37:24
Yeah, no, I'm a big fan of clinical quality registries. I think people know that.

I think they bring a lot to the sector.

I do think the point that you highlighted is, is linkage and I know a number of the registries are linked now, but also working with ABS in terms of linking that data right across so that we, you know, the, the dialysis and transplant registry can then be linked with another registry and we get a, you know, even greater understanding of what's going on.

So, I do know people will quickly say, oh, we're doing that already. I know we are and I think it's fantastic, but it is a real resource but just highlighting the importance of linkage, which I highlighted before, but making sure our state data, our federal data, our clinical quality registries, our other registries, our buyer banks are all linked is going to be really important.

Mr Duncan Young 1:38:21
Thanks, Steve.

There's some questions and comments around, yeah, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, multicultural communities in Australia.

And some concern expressed that the strategy doesn't strongly enough pick up the needs for research, multicultural research and work to include multicultural Australians and questions about multicultural advisory groups for research and should we have one?

Yeah, really keen for both of your views both on this general issue and how do we make sure that our health and medical research sector does serve the breadth of our multicultural community in Australia.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:39:09
Yeah, if I might start off certainly with the development of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy, there had been a really clear interest and focus on making sure that the community – and when I say the community, I mean in its breadth and depth and differences, were going to be considered and reflected as part of that final National Health and Medical Research Strategy.

So as part of references and inclusion of priority populations within the National Health and Medical Research Strategy, it does recognise cultural and linguistic diversity as a specific priority population to be considered as part of that.

I think one of the things that I had certainly heard, and I know that Rosemary had heard and discussed in some of those round tables and workshops was about the intersectionality of differences and diversity as well.

So looking at and making sure that priority populations were not necessarily just seen as individual silos.

It wasn't just about someone who was an older Australian, it wasn't simply then thinking about someone who had a culturally and linguistically diverse background, but recognising that, as I said, diversity is not just siloed, it does actually have that intersectionality which is really important to consider now.

I think again, that is where it's implementation of activities under the umbrella of the National Health and Medical Research Strategy that we all have responsibility for picking up and addressing those issues.

Now whether that is through local advisory groups, whether that is also through national advisory groups as well, but also in terms of engagement.  

So where the national strategy talks about consumer engagement right from the start in terms of development of research and all the way through and right to evaluation as well.

That we all have a responsibility for making sure that the community in its broadest definition and its diversity is included as part of is really not only included but absolutely considered in that design, in the development and in implementation activities throughout.

Mr Duncan Young 1:42:07
Thank you, Natasha.

Steve, did you want to add anything to that?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:42:12
Yeah, I guess the question did go to do we need a separate group giving us advice.

I think that I mean I, I, I'm not against that.

I think time will tell really whether you know, how many advisory groups we need to come into the strategy.

But if we do see that, you know there's an issue that we're missing a part of the Australian population.

I think absolutely would take advice and probably preferably rather than forming new advisory groups, go to existing groups that could give us advice.

Mr Duncan Young 1:42:50
Yeah, thanks Steve.

Thanks Natasha.

And certainly there was no intent at all in the strategy to have any group feel or not included like the, I think it was very underpinned throughout the strategy was for the values of equity, and trying to achieve equity of outcomes, but also having equity of participation.

And our multicultural community are clearly a massive part of our focus. 30% of Australians born overseas, 20% of Australians with at least one parent born overseas.

And the multicultural considerations across our health system do vary significantly by different multicultural groups and by different parts of their life course – the multicultural needs of our ageing Australians can be quite different to our, our recent arrivals.

And so I think thinking really it's not just saying we'll form an advisory group and job done.

It's actually having a really considered view of different streams of research, different priorities of research, different elements.

How do we make sure that we're considering that from all of the different and angles of priority populations we can and, and that can be different in different settings or need different representation from the multicultural community depending on whether or not we're considering mental health issues or whether we're considering transition into supported living as an older Australian with reversion to mother tongue.

And so there are a number of issues that we need to grapple with and grapple with together.

OK, where are we up to?

How does the strategy propose to address research commercialisation, both people support like fellowships or early stage innovations? We did touch a little bit on this high risk for high reward, but really on that commercial kind of interface views on this one.

Professor Steve Wesseligh 1:45:00
I mean, one thing that we did find when we were looking at it was that the ready fellowships were highly regarded.

And so I, I think if you look in the strategy, we talk about the ready fellowships and and reimagining the ready fellowships.

And certainly as recently as yesterday, I was having a conversation with someone who indicated that from their company's point of view, the ready fellowships had been terrific.

So that's one little step there.

But I do think if you look at the strategy, it does acknowledge very strongly that we need to be part of, you know, building prosperity.

You know we shouldn't apologise that our research may lead to commercial outcomes and jobs and products.

And that's an important part of the strategy. And I think it is there pretty strong strongly.

We have our industry philanthropy and commercialisation committee that advises both NHMRC and the MRFF and they've certainly been giving us ideas about that process.

And the MRFF actually has been doing, you know, quite a lot over the last few years.

And we've been evaluating those processes, a lot of which have been very successful and then looking at what, what the next steps are in terms of encouraging the movement of our discoveries into commercialisation.

Mr Duncan Young 1:46:33
Thanks Steve.

Probably just a couple of questions to go. Making sure that everyone can get their the yellow scarves out and then be ready for the Socceroos.

Australia's invested significantly in generating health evidence, but implementation of evidence in a routine practice remains challenging.

Will implementation science and adoption pathways be recognised as strategic priorities within the national strategy?

Natasha, I might hand to you.

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:47:03
Yeah. I think that's one of the areas again that the national strategy is really, I think, was reflecting on and had included really clearly as part of it is that is that research itself needed to be able to happen in practice, so in clinical settings and in community and also to better embed then the outcomes of that research.

So that means changes to practice, changes to services and how they might be done and doing that at the other end once there's actually those really great research outcomes done.

So I felt that the national strategy had reflected on that and was really trying to represent the importance of that happening. Again, I guess going to one of the advisory committees that we have between the MRFF and also NHMRC.

So one of those advisory committees is Public Health and Health Systems.

And I would say that's part of the conversations that we have in that space is really about how to better identify research opportunities that could be funded and to potentially shape those research opportunities.

And then the National Strategy itself goes that bit further as well about how to then turn those great research outcomes or outputs into practice and implementation.

And I'd anticipate that if a National strategy Advisory Council were to be established, looking at that sort of whole breadth of research and how to actually turn those great research outputs into great research outcomes into practice is one of the things I would anticipate would be discussed and would be focused on.

Mr Duncan Young 1:49:22
Thanks, Natasha. Steve, did you want to add to that?

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:49:25
Yeah, only that the strategy does also call out the research translation centres. And so they have a particular role.

They do work predominantly I think in the tertiary and secondary part of the health system rather than primary, although we are encouraging them to be more involved in primary healthcare as well.

But they have a very important role in implementation science as well.

And we are evaluating them right now and we'll be coming out with some ideas about the future of the RTCs.

Mr Duncan Young 1:50:03
Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Natasha.

So probably final question, what do you think might be the biggest risk or hurdle to overcome for us to achieve the strategy's vision and for Australia?

Steve, I'll start with you.

Professor Steve Wesselingh 1:50:24
So I think, I think there's two, I think there's a big picture and then a a small problem that worries me a lot.

So the big picture is, yeah, how do we get the whole of the country to work together on this? Particularly I've talked a lot about the states, but getting the states on board and then from the states down into the health system.

So how do we truly have research embedded in the health system? I think is, is our is the biggest and most important challenge.

The other challenge that I recognise which I've been engaged with a lot of conversations with international agencies around the world is that we are seeing a fairly dramatic increase in applications for funding right across the world.

I mean, some agencies like the NIH and Welcome are seeing doubling in the number of applications are getting. This is probably in part being fuelled by AI.

And so we do have an internal challenge there to make sure that we can cope with that, that our peer review can cope with that, and that we don't see reductions in success rate.

So that's the little challenge that I think we're all facing.

But the big challenge is to make sure this is national.

Mr Duncan Young 1:51:46
Natasha?

Ms Natasha Ploenges 1:51:48
Thanks, Duncan. Thanks, Steve.

When I think about that question, as I think about it more is about what are some of the opportunities rather than some of those risks or hurdles to overcome.

And I think part of that is about really what the National Health and Medical Research Strategy was aiming to do and be, and that was developed by and for the sector.

So I guess the opportunity that I see in that space to help achieve the strategy's vision is for all of those who have an interest in health and medical research actually now looking at the strategy and thinking about the work that they do, the policies that each of the members of the sector have in place.

And really trying to think about it in the context of the national strategy, mapping what they do, thinking about where the next stages are perhaps in their own plans, in their own priorities for funding or activity, and looking at that in the in the context of the national strategy.

So I guess I see that more as an opportunity for everyone now to start linking themselves back to the national strategy to help us all move towards reaching that vision as well.

Mr Duncan Young 1:53:21

Thanks, Natasha.

My two cents is I think a collective challenge for us will be to continue building and maintaining public trust in science, in research, in research organisations, in the use of their data, public data for community good.

I think that is something which is really a system wide challenge for us in Australia, but also globally and something that will be a critical enabler of our work over the next 5 to 10 years, as it has been over the last 100.

But we have specific challenges at the moment as we move forward, as we adopt new technological approaches, as we hope to do more in terms of the data space.

And so I think that is something that we need to collectively work on.

OK, Well I'd like to firstly thank Natasha and Steve for their time today and their candidness and openness to have any and all questions and answer them.

I really appreciate you sharing today.

I'd like to acknowledge and thank everyone who's come along today and helped take the conversation further.

Your questions not only give us a chance to share thinking back with a broader group, but also help us understand what's top of mind for you and what are the key issues.

So to really appreciate hearing those and as I said at the start, this strategy is only as broad and complete as what it is because of the many submissions and their participation in previous webinars and our roundtable sessions and our stakeholder sessions along the way.

So huge thanks to everyone has played a part in bringing this strategy together.

And then finally, thanks to our team, not just the team which support us today in running this this webinar, but the teams across NHMRC and the department that did a lot of the heavy lifting and work in drafting and bringing together the National Health and medical Research Strategy.

I think it's created a, a fantastic platform and foundation for, for our work together over the next 5 to 10 years.

Thanks all – and go Socceroos.

End of transcript.