Senate debates

Monday, 6 March 2023

Bills

Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022; Second Reading

6:10 pm

Photo of Malcolm RobertsMalcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I have concerns about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. We can hear the cheers of joy from the research rent-seekers. This bill includes a huge $400 million grant program, over four years, adding to the nearly $4 billion a year the government already spends on research. Research is important; I know that myself. In the past Australia has led the world on innovation. Yet I'm not convinced the government deserves the credit for our country men and women's inventions.

Research is not just about money. I'm not convinced that a huge, centralised, bloated federal government splashing huge amounts of cash is going to supercharge our economy. Science grants have already been responsible across science sectors for corrupting science. We see that in climate. We see that in COVID. We see that in water management and many other areas. Money for advocacy on behalf of government ideology—that is what has plagued the CSIRO and turned it into a siphon for taxpayer funds. In return, the CSIRO is now corrupting science and being an advocate.

Don't take my word for it. I'm talking about senior research scientists who have retired from CSIRO saying exactly what I just said. CSIRO is now an advocacy group for government ideology and policy—not just the Labor Party but the general policies that have been pushed by governments. Australia's Economic Accelerator has a focus on translating research to commercial outcomes. Sounds good! Has it occurred to anyone that the reason some of that research has not been translated into a commercial outcome might be that businesses have looked at the research and decided it's a terrible business idea? What if we're spending nearly half a billion dollars here to flog dead horses or giving taxpayer money to companies which would have commercialised the research anyway, without grants, because it's a good business idea? That's the point: in a free society, not corrupted by massive bloated government, merit determines what succeeds.

These handouts for projects that businesses would have undertaken anyway are corporate welfare, or maybe they're corporate bribes. Only the big companies will get access to this corporate welfare. Small business misses out yet again. Only the huge corporates can hire the grand consultants, navigate the forests and weeds of more than 200 grant scheme programs through which the government provides research funding, and make the applications.

The Department of Education confesses that most submissions to the University Research Commercialisation Action Plan:

… agreed that there is no 'silver bullet' solution to improving research commercialisation outcomes, and that new reforms need to be integrated across the whole research commercialisation ecosystem.

Anyone reading between the lines on those bureaucratic super buzzwords will realise that no-one really knows if the economic accelerator will do much to achieve its supposed purpose. We know that the biggest brake—b-r-a-k-e—on our country, and particularly our country's innovation, is big, bloated government pushing on the brake and the accelerator at the same time.

There's a big assumption underpinning this bill and research funding in Australia. It assumes that a big, bloated federal government, with bureaucrats sitting in Canberra enforcing grant guidelines, will lead to innovation and commercial activity. That's a big assumption. If we want true innovation—I think we all do—and a boost in commercial activity, government grants are a terrible way to do it. Government is the one standing in the way. It's not just the Labor-Greens government; it's also the former Liberal-National government. The government is the one standing in the way of innovation and commercial outcomes.

Instead of grants, how about this: get government policy focused on getting back to basics, firstly making electricity as cheap as humanly possible, after government has spent decades blowing up the price of electricity with artificial subsidies that are destroying our electricity sector. That ripples right through the economy; every sector uses electricity. Once it has been made expensive, there goes the competitive advantage that used to apply. Aluminium smelters are now shutting down, rather than coming on, because they can't afford the electricity.

Secondly, simplify industrial relations. Instead of protecting the industrial relations club members—large foreign and domestic corporates, unaccountable union bosses, lawyers, consultants and bureaucrats—exploiting workers, as I've discussed so many times, and suppressing small and medium-sized businesses, we need an industrial relations system that protects workers and enables small and medium-sized enterprise to get on with the job of employing people.

Thirdly, fix the taxation system's hideous complexity and the counterproductive behaviours that it drives. Fix the taxation system with comprehensive reform so that multinationals pay their fair share of tax and relieve the burden on families and on Australian companies struggling under a high tax burden in times of severe inflation—yet another highly regressive government financial burden.

Do these three things, Minister, and watch the commercialisation of research take off. The government will never have to make another grant. One Nation will not oppose this bill. Without proper reform of the important parts of our economy, though, research grants are just flogging a dead horse. I will be returning to the topic of research grants lacking accountability, which is such a widespread problem in our country.

Comments

No comments