Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. I refer to the minister’s previous answers and the Rudd government’s decision to axe the vital Commercial Ready program. Will the minister now consider funding the 71 grant applications which were before his department between 28 April, when the government secretly closed Commercial Ready, and budget night, 13 May, when the closure was announced?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his interest in innovation. I must say to you that this is heartfelt, because it has been such a long time since we heard from the opposition on the importance of innovation. I am encouraged by the opposition showing such a keen interest in innovation these days. They never showed such interest when they were in government—throughout those 11 years that saw Australia go backwards as our competitors forged ahead. Australia ranked eighth in the OECD for business expenditure on research and development as a share of GDP in 1995-96. By 2005-06, we had slipped to 15th. Why? Because Australia was one of only three OECD countries to reduce its tax benefits for business research and development in the late nineties.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The question to Senator Carr was extremely specific: will the minister now consider funding the 71 grant applications which were before his department?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is allowed to expand his answer, but I would remind him of the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I was indicating was that in the late nineties, while the previous government reduced research and development assistance, the situation was that 12 other countries increased their level of support. So our competitors were moving in one way and Australia was moving in the other. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the new-found interest that the opposition has in innovation.

We only have to compare this with what the previous government did in respect of universities. Here we see a similar pattern emerge. Between 1995 and 2004, public funding for tertiary education rose by 49 per cent on average among OECD member countries, but in Australia it fell by four per cent. And now I am asked whether or not the government are going to change our position with regard to the budget situation that we found ourselves in as a result of the legacy of the previous regime—a regime which left us with record levels of inflation. Australia, I might add, was the only one of the OECD countries where the top level of public funding for tertiary education, as a result of the former government’s legacy, decreased during their period of office. And they want to lecture us!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President I rise on a point of order. You are very kind to Senator Carr to allow him to wander far and wide but, when he is onto higher education, he really has strayed right off the topic in relation to the specific question asked by Senator Fifield.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they are separate portfolios.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I do not need advice. I am struggling to find some relevance, Senator Carr, to the question that was asked. I remind you of the question and draw you back to it.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard from the shadow minister just then that it was a different portfolio. He has failed to understand the elements of the innovation program that we are trying to run. He has failed to understand the links between our university system, our public research and development scheme and our private research and development scheme. He has failed to grasp the fundamentals of the national innovation revolution that the government are pursuing. What we have here is an opposition that is locked in the past. What we have here is an opposition that is so out of touch with what is going on that it may actually have to—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr, I ask you to return to the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have of course addressed the fundamental issue here, which is the national innovation revolution that is being pursued by the government. It is said to me that we should reconsider 71 applications which were before the government at the time that the budget decisions were made. In what part of the process was it ever said that there will be a guaranteed outcome for an application for a government grant? At what point in the process was that ever stated? At what point in the process was it ever stated that a particular government was prevented from changing the decisions of a previous government? At what point in the process has it ever been said that applicants cannot make approaches to the department for alternative programs which are currently underway? That is what I have indicated to this chamber and what I have indicated to the people who have approached the department. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I observe that Senator Carr’s response was woeful even by his standards. There was not a single word in response to the question.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fifield, as I said yesterday in response to a point of order taken by Senator Bob Brown, you should come to the question and not make arguments or statements prior to it.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite Senator Carr, through you, Mr President, to answer the question. I refer the minister to the case of Vigil Systems, in the Prime Minister’s own electorate, who were told on the day before the budget by the minister’s own department that their grant application for the development of a high-tech product designed to reduce the road toll was approved, bar the final dot on an ‘i’. The next day, budget day, they were told the project would not go ahead. Will the minister commit to funding this application and others which were considered and approved for funding between 28 April and 13 May?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The process of grant applications is well known, even to the opposition. In the short period that they have been out of government, they have chosen to pretend that they do not understand the process, but the fact is that at a particular point the delegation authority was removed from the officers responsible. That is the nature of the budget decision. I cannot overturn that. I have no intention of seeking to overturn that. The budget decision will be maintained. What we have indicated is that individual companies who wish to approach the government will be advised about the alternative programs that are available and help will be provided to assist those companies in response to this government decision.