Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Moore, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that National Science Week 2015 runs from 15 August to 23 August 2015,

(ii) the importance of inspiring and supporting young Australians to study and pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and

(iii) that science and research are critical to building the jobs of the future;

(b) congratulates the organisers of the 1 500 National Science Week events around the nation, aimed at engaging Australians of all ages with the wonders of science; and

(c) condemns:

(i) the short sighted cuts to science and research in the Government's first two budgets, totalling more than $1 billion,

(ii) the Government's attempts to undermine Australia's publicly funded research agencies, by slashing funding and jobs, including overseeing the largest job losses at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in the organisation's history,

(iii) the complete failure of the Government to understand and advocate for basic research, which delivers new knowledge and underpins technological innovation, and

(iv) the total lack of vision or commitment on the part of the Government when it comes to creating and sustaining the jobs of the future.

In moving this motion I take this opportunity to respond to some questions that were raised by the minister in his ministerial statement of 17 August on science and innovation. This statement was made in the House of Representatives on Monday 17 August. I came to this chamber seeking the statement and was advised that there would be no statement here on 17 August. I came here on Tuesday and was again advised that there was no statement. Yesterday I moved a motion effectively requiring a return to order for the statement to be provided, because it is most unusual and beyond normal customer practice for there to be a ministerial statement in the House of Representatives on important matters of this type and for it not to be made in the Senate. It is a measure of the dysfunction of this government that there was no statement made in the Senate until such time as the return to order was moved and—surprise, surprise—late in the proceedings yesterday, the statement arrived.

It is unfortunate that this should happen in Science Week. When you look at the belated Minister for Industry and Science's statement you can see it is a disappointing document, because it lacks a strategic vision for the future of Australian science. The sad fact is that the government really lacks leadership when it comes to science policy, and it is appropriate that we are discussing this motion today, because it goes to the very heart of the reason for the government's failure in this area. The ministerial statement made in the House of Representatives provides further confirmation that the government has nothing to offer the science and research sector but a series of cliches and motherhood statements. The minister talks about science being crucial for jobs, growth and business success, and it is. He says that it underpins the nation's innovation capacity, and it does. And because it does, you would have thought that the government would have taken the opportunity to use this week, Science Week, to demonstrate some leadership to outline a strategic plan for the development of Australia's strategic scientific capacity.

You would have thought that the government, rather than just issuing a series of motherhood statements about science, would understand the real transformative power of science—the fact that it offers to us the capacity to develop new opportunities in every aspect of life in this country. The minister tells us that the estimates show that a $100 million business invests in R&D generates a return of some $150 million to $200 million, yet the statement fails to mention that there is legislation before this chamber for the second time to cut the rate of support for business research through the research and development taxation incentives. It neglects to mention that this government has already cut the incentives for research and development for the country's most significant research and development investors and has cut support for the most innovative companies. This is just one symptom of a failed policy position. When you read the ministerial statement you can see that it misses the mark on so many issues.

The minister fails in part because the views on science and research are presented almost entirely through a very narrow prism of commercialisation. No-one can argue that collaboration between industry and research is not crucial. However, that cooperation will be fruitless if the role of basic research is ignored. The government's statement tabled here last night has nothing to say about fundamental, curiosity-driven research—research that aims to understand our world and our place within that world. The greatest transformations of our time, particularly through applied research, come as a result of basic research. The proposition that concerns me is that, if we do not invest in basic research, we will not be well placed to do anything else, and our businesses will ultimately be less able to create new products, adapt new knowledge and adopt new technologies.

When you look at the way in which other countries do things, you will see that they leave us for dead. For instance, in July, the United States issued its annual pre-budget directive to government agencies on their spending priorities. It was signed by the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, as well as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. In the United States, the proposition advanced is:

Federal government funding for research and development is essential to address societal needs in areas in which the private sector does not have sufficient economic incentive to make the required investments.

Key among these is basic research—the fundamental, curiosity-driven inquiry that is a hallmark of American research enterprise and a powerful driver of new technology.

That is the official view in the United States, which the minister says is the great 'productivity frontier'. The real problem here is that in this government no-one is really responsible for science policy. The Minister for Science is not responsible for research policy; that is a responsibility of the Minister for Education. In the United States—it is 'across the aisle', as they say—the principle is understood that there is a direct link between basic research and the commercialisation of applied research—clearly something this government does not appreciate. The minister has a lot to say about CSIRO.

This government has reduced CSIRO's funding by $115 million. CSIRO has a long and deservedly held formidable global reputation for its achievements in large part because it has strength in both its abilities of basic research and applied research. Remember it is CSIRO researchers who have given the world Wi-Fi technology. The minister's statement gives no acknowledgement that these types of achievements, which are a direct spin-off from astronomical research. CSIRO is not the only public research agency the Commonwealth has failed to fund adequately.

In its first two budgets, this government has cut $1.3 billion from science and research. If you take into account the reductions in support for industry programs, for innovation programs—Commercialisation Australia, the R&D tax incentive—you find that the reduction in support moves to $3 billion. There is $107 million for the Cooperative Research Centres Program, $75 million from the ARC, $28 million from ANSTO, $8 million from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, $16 million from Geoscience Australia, $120 million from the DSTO, $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, $300 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence in Universities program and $84 million from R&D in ICT as a result of the assault on NICTA. We now have a program to salvage something out of this, taken on by CSIRO, to merge NICTA within its operation. It comes, however, at the cost of 200 more jobs on top of the 1,200 jobs lost at CSIRO. We do not know what the consequences will be for the 300 PhD students that NCITA currently engage—PhD students who work directly with industry solving practical problems, the vast majority of whom go directly into industry. NICTA is a perfect example of this government saying one thing and doing another. It is not the only example. The abolition of Commercialisation Australia and Enterprise Connect and other measures within the industry department have undermined the capacity of our universities and private companies to work together.

This government has been able to produce cliché-ridden statements and endless reviews—I think there are now six reviews into the research program—some of which have been completed. We get vacuous statements, so there is very little coherence and very little strategic vision in the government's conduct of science policy. And as I say, it comes back to the fundamental problem of the division within the government between ministers and the industry department and the education department having split responsibilities where research falls effectively between the cracks.

The Minister for Education describes himself as a 'fixer'. He was the one who said that we could hold to ransom the 1,700 science jobs and the 35,000 research projects tied up with NCRIS, as part of his program to try to impose $100,000 university degrees. Clearly we have no coherence in this government about the way in which we develop our science policy or our research policy, or even our understanding of how we promote our scientific capacity. Dr Danielle Edwards, who was offered an early career fellowship which she turned down, told the ABC that there is a:

… lack of government support that seems to be continuing and getting worse … I think, it's going to be really hard for Australian scientists to produce world-class research going into the future.

Dr Edwards is an evoluntary biologist who looks at the effect of factors like the environment on genetic diversity. I would hazard a guess that, given her research expertise, Dr Edwards does not regard well the attitude towards climate change held by this government. It is disappointing yet again to see no reference to climate change in the ministerial statement. The science minister in Science Week does not seem to think it is worthy of our attention to discuss climate change.

What we do know is that the government's adviser on climate change, Mr Bernie Fraser, describes the attitude the government is putting forward in regard to the costs of climate change and their opposition policy statements as 'weird' and 'misleading'. We can see the sharp contrast yet again between what is happening in this country and what is happening in the United States. Global climate change is the first priority identified in the White House memo to all agencies when considering their science and research budget bids. The second priority is clean energy. In fact, you can go through the whole list of US priorities and find things the Abbott government has cut or ignored—earth observation, advanced manufacturing, ocean science and information technology. Fascinatingly, in the United States they have 'R&D for informed policy making and management'. These are things that do not register with this government. The contrast in approach is extraordinary.

The science, research and innovation budget tables released earlier this month show that under the Labor government investment rose by more than 50 per cent. There was a 50 per cent improvement in support for science, research and innovation under the Labor government between 2007-08 and 2013-14. In contrast, under this government the reductions have been savage. The consequences will be long term. It is appropriate that the Senate, therefore, give consideration to the issues before the chamber in this motion.

In opposition we have already made a range of commitments to support science, technology, engineering, maths and start-up company finance. I do not have any personal animus towards the Minister for Industry and Science but what a job he must have trying to sell science in what is essentially an antiscience government. He has been handed a poisoned chalice by the Prime Minister—belatedly, I say because they tacked on 'science' well over 12 months into the government's commission. There was no real commitment to the importance of science. It is regarded as something hostile. You have free licence in this government to promote antiscientific attitudes, whether it be on windmills or vaccinations. There is the proposition that science is somehow dangerous. This has led to the making of vacuous, pious statements and cliches rather than dealing with the substantial policy work that is required to show science leadership and to ensure that this country is able to face up to the challenges of climate change and face up to the challenges of developing our scientific capacity to give us the skills and ability to maintain prosperity.

In Science Week we as a nation could choose to promote the importance of innovation and science programs, but what we have seen from this government is massive reductions. There is no science advocate in this government. There are no evangelists for the importance of science and innovation. It is widely believed that the term 'innovation' is regarded with some hostility by the Prime Minister. The government has no leadership credentials on science or innovation. It is unfortunate that the minister's science statement failed to deliver any strategy for the advancement of Australian science or the development of research capacity.

There is a backlog emerging in terms of the funding of our research infrastructure. Some $3.5 billion is required to fund the next 10 years of science infrastructure. There is $3.9 billion sitting in the EIF. What did the government do? It said it wants to abolish that fund and use that money to promote the building of private roads. That is the government's approach. The government does not understand the critical responsibilities it has not only to fund scientific infrastructure but to support, argue and evangelise in favour of the importance of science, to ensure we as a nation have the capabilities to meet the challenges of the 21st century head on, to promote young people to take on science and to have the equipment available so they can fulfil their function in the service of the nation.

I commend to the chamber the proposition before us today. I have no doubt that, given an opportunity to respond to the government's defence on these matters, we will take up these issues further this afternoon.