Senate debates

Thursday, 20 August 2015

Motions

National Science Week

4:15 pm

Photo of Kim CarrKim 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.

4:35 pm

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon—

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | | Hansard source

I can't believe it—three out of three!

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Conroy has won the lotto of life. Every time he is on duty in the chamber he has to put up with one of my speeches. Congratulations!

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

And me.

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

And Senator Bilyk too. Congratulations! I think you need to be nicer to the Labor whips because clearly they do not like you if they are forcing you to listen to me. Be nicer to the whips.

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am a whip.

Photo of James McGrathJames McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You should be better at your job then. I am going to say some very interesting things on what the government is doing for science. I am sure Senator Conroy will listen with excitement. This government is absolutely committed to putting science at the heart of industry policy, and the funding that goes across the government is testament to that commitment. Senator Carr said before that he thought there was no advocate for science in the government. I think all members of the coalition are advocates for science and all members of the coalition are advocates for innovation and building a smarter and stronger Australia.

This year alone we are spending $9.7 billion on science, research and innovation and $5.8 billion over the next four years on science and research in the Industry and Science portfolio alone. And there will be $3.1 billion for CSIRO over the next four years, with funding increases year-on-year over the forward estimates. This is the Liberal-National coalition government investing more than $731 million over five years for the competitive research centres to continue their diverse range of research. There will be new investments of almost $70 million to secure operation of vital scientific assets and promote the benefits of science in the community. In addition, the Liberal-National government will invest $12 million to improve the focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics or what are called the stem subjects—science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects—in secondary education through the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda.

We probably should—and it would be very handy to—have a look at Labor's record in relation to science. In 2008, Labor cut $63½ million from CSIRO over four years. The then science and innovation minister, Senator Kim Carr, admitted that the cuts had to be tough 'because we are fighting a war on inflation'. These cuts led to job losses and the closure of some research laboratories. The CEO of CSIRO at the time said:

We are seriously disappointed—

This was with the government's decision

but that is their call and we disagree with it.

Labor also cut $2½ million from ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, in its 2010 budget. Labor cut $40½ million from the competitive research centres in the 2011-12 budget leading to three agriculture competitive research centres being abolished. Labor budgeted for the construction of the RV Investigator, a new bluewater research vessel for the CSIRO, but provided no funding for its operation.

I suppose if you take Senator Carr's words on value, when he talks about having advocates for science, he takes the Labor definition of advocates being those people who talk about it but do not deliver or, if they do talk about it, they actually cut funding for it or do not supply any funding for it. It was this government that provided the $65.7 million in last year's budget required to get the RV Investigator on the water. This government will talk about delivering and will actually then deliver our commitments and our promises made to the Australian people in relation to science and innovation. For Labor, sadly, it was all about the next front page.

The coalition government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was elected to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster and return the budget to surplus. That means that in all areas we have had to make a contribution in terms of returning the budget to surplus. Labor's debt is already costing about $1 billion a month in net interest payments—and that is borrowed money. No country can go on paying the mortgage from the credit card and that is what Labor, in terms of their approach to economics, had been doing during their term in office.

Labor cut $6.6 billion from 2011-12 to 2016-17 in funding to higher education and research while they were in office, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone. Labor cut $563.7 million from a sustainable research excellence program by changing the rate of funding for the sustainable research excellence program itself. Labor cut $324.9 million by increasing student contributions for existing maths and science students by the removal of grandfathering provisions. Labor also cut over $1 billion by reinstating band 2 student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science units for new students. Labor made no provision for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and the Future Fellowship Program for research talent beyond 2015. Labor was happy to let Australia's research efforts fall off a funding cliff.

But Labor, as identified by Senator Carr, like to talk and like to advocate but are not very good at providing the money. In the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech this year, he promised over 100,000 free science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees over five years, but there was no funding whatsoever. So we have got a Labor Party in opposition who believe in governing by press release and in worrying about the next day's front pages rather than worrying about where the money is going to come from or indeed worrying about how they are going to help contribute to the mess that they left in office after the Australian people voted them out in 2013.

Science is vital to Australia's future, particularly given the strong impact of science on industry, the strong link between scientific thinking and industry explains why science is in the Minister for Industry and Science's remit. We are developing a strategic approach to science policy which will adopt a whole-of-government outlook to ensure that all portfolios work together to focus our resources and to deliver jobs. It is the coalition's belief that this will inspire young Australians and inform them and their parents of the importance and of the value of science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science, Karen Andrews, who is the member for McPherson on the Gold Coast, is actually an engineer, which has traditionally been a very male dominated profession, and is one of the leading advocates for getting more women into traditional male professions such as engineering.

We have also established the Commonwealth Science Council to advise on areas of national strength and priority as well as current and future capability and to suggest ways to improve connections between government, research organisations, universities and business. The Science Council meets twice yearly and acts as a source of advice for the government as it develops a comprehensive strategy for science. The Science Council is chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Minister for Industry and Science as deputy chair. The Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and Training as well as the Chief Scientist are standing members. Five eminent scientists, researchers and educators and five business leaders make up the majority of the Science Council to ensure discussions and to address the need for industry and science to work together closely to boost the competitiveness of Australia. The contribution of scientists and researchers is critical to lifting our productivity, creating jobs and building on our competitive advantage in key sectors. Australia's ability to compete in global markets in all sectors depends on our ability to move up the value chain, producing high-quality, innovative or niche products. Connecting science to industry is therefore the cornerstone of our industry policy and indeed our science policy.

In conjunction with the Science Council, the government has also established the National Science, Technology and Research Committee. The committee is chaired by the Chief Scientist and members include the CEOs of government research agencies and senior executives from the Department of Industry and Science, the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Training. This committee has been tasked by the research council and provides an operational perspective compared to the Science Council's strategic perspective. The Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda includes initiatives to encourage and target innovation and collaboration in research and development. The government is going to provide just under $100 million—$97.6 million to be precise—to pursue global excellence in areas of competitive strength. In addition, we are investing more than $100 million per annum in the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Programme to connect researchers and businesses to develop and commercialise home-grown ideas. The Australian government will also support businesses to innovate and engage in research and development through the R&D tax incentive, which is expected to provide over $1 billion in tax offsets for eligible companies in 2015-16.

The government also strongly believes that we must promote the science agenda in schools to those who are going to move into the sector in the future. As part of the competitiveness agenda, the government is providing additional support to foster school students' interest and competency in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This will better equip students with job-relevant skills and provide an additional $12 million to assist to develop and implement innovative online curriculum resources in mathematics, to enhance computer programming skills across the curriculum, and to provide seed funding to pilot an innovation focused PTEC-styled secondary education initiative. It is also the aim to increase student participation in summer schools for science, technology, engineering and mathematics students.

The government is very proud of its record in the science, technology and innovation space. Support for science and research in the industry and science portfolio, as indicated in my opening comments, will total $5.8 billion over four years. Broken down, this includes more than $3 billion for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO, to continue its work across a range of industries; $768 million for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; $485 million for Geoscience Australia; and $168 million for the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

The government has also made new investments of $97 million for securing the ongoing operation of vital scientific assets and promoting the benefits of science in the community including $28 million for Science for Australia's Future to continue to support the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science, National Science Week and Questacon educational campaigns. I think many people in this chamber and in the other place often speak to school students who are coming through the houses of parliament. Without wanting to dis their enthusiasm for parliamentary democracy, often it is the case that the students are far more excited about having just come from Questacon or about their visit to Questacon. I must praise Questacon for the work it does for visiting school students, especially from my home state of Queensland. There will also be $49.1 million for permanent and safe disposal of used Australian nuclear fuel and $20.5 million for operating the Australian Synchrotron in 2016-17.

The government believes strongly in what are called 'industry growth centres'. The government is going to provide $225 million to pursue global excellence in five areas of competitive strength: food and agribusiness; mining equipment, technology and services; oil, gas and energy resources; medical technologies and pharmaceuticals; and advanced manufacturing sectors. On a personal note, in relation to medical technologies, as someone who suffers from severe and extreme sleep apnoea, my life is made sometimes a little bit easier by the use of a CPAP machine, which was developed mainly by an Australian. I give thanks to that person for those nights when I am able to sleep.

There have been stories in the media in relation to cuts that have had to be made. It must be emphasised that any cuts that have been made have been because we need to restore the budget to a sensible financial position after the reckless financial indifference of the former Labor government between 2007 and 2013. We are committed to returning the budget to surplus as soon as we possibly can. However, we are not going to go around the country waving blank cheques or even signed cheques without ensuring that the fiscal rectitude that was demonstrated through the Howard-Costello years but needlessly ignored in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Swan years is put in place. This task of restoring the budget to surplus has meant that the government, operating in a very difficult fiscal environment, has been forced to make a number of decisions affecting all areas of government.

But some of the things we have been able to do include focusing on sharing the science and research responsibilities. Under the make-up of the government, these are shared through the Industry and Science and the Education and Training portfolios. The Minister for Industry and Science, my fellow Queenslander Ian Macfarlane, has responsibility for science research policy, industrial research and development, and key scientific agencies such as CSIRO. The Minister for Education and Training has responsibility for research policy in relation to universities, research infrastructure and research grants and fellowships.

One of the really good programs that the government have been working on and bringing about—and I mentioned this briefly in my opening remarks—is the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program. The Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program includes Research Connections, which aims to bring businesses and researchers together to develop new ideas with commercial potential. The services will include access to advisers who can link businesses to appropriate research institutions, and matched funding to bring research capability into the business for specific projects through the Accelerating Commercialisation component of the program.

The Commonwealth Science Council, which advises the government on areas of national strength and capability and on ways to improve connections between government, research organisations, universities and businesses, also will play a role. This council, which meets yearly, acts as a source of advice for the government. In terms of where the government's policy agenda takes it, it would be more appropriate for the government to listen to the Science Council than to the former minister, Senator Carr, whose period in office did not leave a marked effect or an improvement on the science sector in Australia.

This government is absolutely committed to putting science at the heart of industry policy. The funding that the government has committed across a range of areas is a strong commitment to that. You will find that every member of the coalition is a strong advocate for science and is a very strong advocate for ensuring that science, industry and innovation come together so we can build a stronger Australia which has a healthy and strong economy, as long as we can get the budget back under control.

4:55 pm

Photo of Janet RiceJanet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

It is a great honour for me to rise to speak in this National Science Week as one of a minority of members of parliament who have a science background. I treasure my scientific training because of the logical, rational approach to problem solving that that background fostered. That background gives me an understanding of scientific method. Having a scientific approach to understanding the world and the challenges we face is a critical skill that is undervalued in this place and a critical skill that needs to be brought to our decision making in this place.

Sadly, since my days as a science student at university, when I studied maths and meteorology, I have seen respect for science fly out the window. The last few years have marked a low point in support for science by government. However, support for science by the public continues to grow. People recognise that, if we are going to face the challenges of the 21st century, we need the skills to think and reason, through science and scientific method.

Australia has a long history of scientific achievement, from early refrigerators to solar hot water, ultrasound technology, the bionic ear, the world's first frozen-embryo baby, the famous winged keel of Australia II, the wi-fi that we all use and even the dual-flush toilet. Australia has led the world.

But this government, led by Prime Minister Abbott, is doing its best to gut our science industry and to trash our international reputation while it is at it. Unfortunately, the rosy approach to science that Senator McGrath has just outlined in his contribution is far from the reality that we see on the ground. On top of cuts from the previous Labor government, last year's brutal budget slashed spending on research and development. The cuts were continued this year, with research-and-development funding now at the lowest level for 30 years.

Morale amongst the scientists that I know is also at an all-time low. I think of one of the people I know who I have been communicating with on social media, who has just finished a PhD in marine biology. His desperate plea to me was, 'I don't want to have to leave Australia.' He wants to stay here. He wants to contribute to the Australian scientific effort, but he can see the potential for jobs for him. Despite the fact that there is a huge amount of research that needs to be undertaken that is critical for Australia's future, he just does not see that the jobs are going to be there. He can see that, if he wants to continue to work in his field and use his skills as a scientist, he is going to have to go overseas.

In the Treasurer's budget night speech, not once was the word 'science' used—not once! We have to turn the corner and see that investment in science and research is vital for our wellbeing and the economy. When the mining boom is over, we will need something to sell to the rest of the world. The Greens want to see scientific pursuits like renewable energy research and medical research get the same kind of multibillion-dollar support that is currently given to fossil-fuel companies. But, instead of encouraging science, this government just wants to deny it.

The lack of scientific literacy, the lack of value that this government places on science, is alarming. The science tells us that we have to act to combat climate change, we have to act now and we have to act seriously. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an incredible international institution bringing together thousands of scientists to reach consensus agreements on the science of climate change. Research undertaken by IPCC scientists around the world, including in Australia by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, has informed the position taken by the Climate Change Authority, which has said, based on the science, that we need to cut emissions by 40 to 60 per cent by 2030 to protect our community from the devastating impacts of global warming on our health, the health of our environment and the health of our economy. Yet we have a Prime Minister who dismisses the science as 'absolute crap'.

The science tells us that we have to make the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy, like wind and solar, and we have to do it extremely quickly, yet we have a Prime Minister who insists that coal is good for humanity, and brags about reducing the renewable energy target. The science tells us that there is no credible evidence about the negative impacts of wind farms. The science actually shows that these false claims can make people sick. Yet we have a Prime Minister who continues to perpetuate myths about the impacts of wind farms. It is time for the Prime Minister and his government to start listening to the science and to the community instead of providing an unfiltered ear to the big polluters, their slick lobbyists and the mega political donations.

The science does not tell us that burning native forests for energy is in any way renewable, that creating massive new coalmines has no impact on the climate or that culling sharks has any benefit to swimmers' safety, but the government does not want to listen. It was recently made public that the environment minister had a report sitting on his desk from eminent scientists Andrew Macintosh and Professor David Lindenmayer showing that ending logging in Victoria's Central Highlands would have a carbon abatement of three million tons every year, which, based on the price the government paid earlier this year of $14 a ton for carbon, would be worth more than $40 million every year. The science tells us that ending native forest logging throughout the country would be worth billions of dollars in carbon abatement. It would reduce the effects of climate change, boost local jobs in tourism and save some of our most endangered and precious animals.

Science is waving its arms in the air with the answers to our future prosperity. It is shouting about the industries of the future that are in research and development, in manufacturing clean energy products like electric cars and solar panels, and in ensuring the coming generations receive a world-class, scientifically-based education. But this government simply refuses to listen. This government's attitude to science highlights that they have no plan or vision for the future. In this National Science Week, we must open our ears and let science be the hero.

5:03 pm

Photo of Catryna BilykCatryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

What science has given our society cannot be underestimated. Science, particularly in the last two centuries, has totally transformed the human experience. It has expanded our life spans, provided us with technology and experience almost beyond imagination, and has made life much, much easier.

I am glad that in this place we can mark National Science Week 2015, which runs from the 15 to 23 August 2015. It is extremely important in this country that we celebrate and promote science through the events held in National Science Week. It engages all sectors of the broader Australian society, but particularly children, with the importance of science in our lives. It encourages children to be inquisitive about the world around them, to show them that science can be interesting and fun and that there are exciting science careers available that can help those around them. Whether it is engineering, medicine, ICT, mathematics, pathology, chemistry, physics or one of the hundreds of other jobs that are science based, a career in science is interesting, challenging and meaningful. There are over 70 National Science Week events planned in my home state of Tasmania during this National Science Week, and I encourage people to go out and participate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the organisers of these events and the 1,500 National Science Week events around the nation.

Science has become so ingrained in our society that we often do not stop to think about it. It does not cross our radar—to use a science-based metaphor. And this is in some ways worrying, because unless we are aware of the ways that science affects our daily lives, we forget the importance of science research for the future of our society.

The other problem is that it makes it easier for governments, like this Abbott government, to cut funding to organisations like the CSIRO. This government cares so little about science that they did not even have a science minister for the 15 months from 18 September 2013 until 23 December 2014. That was the first time since March 1931 that Australia did not have a science minister. That is rather a despicable situation.

The Abbott government's anti-science agenda is extreme. I do not think we have seen in this country before a government that is willing to attack science so publicly or so vigorously. They attack science because it deals with the facts that do not conveniently fit into their ideological model. In less than two years this government has tried to cut $3 billion from science, research and innovation. I will repeat that: this government has tried to cut $3 billion from science, research and innovation in less than two years. They should be condemned loudly for these cuts. These cuts include: CSIRO—$114 million cut; Australian Research Council—the ARC—$75 million cut; Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—$27.5 million cut; Cooperative Research Centres—CRCs—$80 million cut; Research Training Scheme—$173.7 million cut; Commercialisation Australia abolished—$260 million cut; National ICT Australia Ltd to be abolished—$84 million cut; Geoscience Australia—$16.1 million cut; and Defence Science and Technology Organisation—$120 million cut.

This Liberal government made a large number of cuts to programs for innovation in the 2014-15 budget. These cuts include reductions in the value of the R&D tax incentive, estimated to save around $1.7 billion in lost incentives for businesses to invest in R? the abolition of Commercialisation Australia, $260 million; the abolition of the Innovation Investment Fund venture capital; the abolition of Enterprise Connect, $152 million; a cut of $45 million from clean technology programs and a move to abolish ARENA; the abolition of industry innovation precincts, $298 million; the abolition of Enterprise Solutions, $28.7 million; the abolition of Researchers in Business; and the replacement of a number of these programs with an ill-conceived Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program, now known just as the Entrepreneurs Program, which tries to deliver programs similar to Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia with around half the funding. In the 2015-16 budget, the government made additional cuts to innovation, including $27 million from the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program, and a further $31.7 million from industry grant programs abolished in the 2014-15 budget.

CSIRO alone has lost 1,200 science and support staff in the last two years, the largest job cuts in the organisation's history. Those 1,200 jobs represent 20 per cent of the total staff of the agency, a drastic and unwarranted cut. These cuts have been particularly hard in my home state of Tasmania, with 76 jobs lost at CSIRO's world-class research labs, which has significantly impacted on the important work they do—and, of course, it has not helped staff morale any. CSIRO has also closed or merged several of its research sites, including eliminating the world-class irrigation research team at Griffith in New South Wales and consolidating sites in Canberra. The agency has also asked the National Capital Authority to rezone the Ginninderra field station site on the Barton Highway as 'urban area' in the next amendment to the National Capital Plan, due out next year. Do you know why it needs to do that? It needs to do that because that would allow CSIRO to sell or build on the site for commercial development. CSIRO should not have to sell off the farm and would not have to if the Abbott government had not slashed $115 million from its funding in the 2014 budget. Senator Rice made some comments about some of the inventions, but let's remember that Australia and the world can also thank the CSIRO for inventing wi-fi, plastic banknotes and the hendra virus vaccine, amongst other things.

The Abbott government also decided to abolish the Education Investment Fund—which funded the construction of Australia's only blue-water research vessel, the RV Investigatorand transferred the money to its failed Asset Recycling Fund. The previous Labor government invested $120 million to build the RV Investigator, a world-class vessel that is capable of spending 300 days a year at sea. Yet the Abbott government took a short-sighted decision in its 2014 budget to provide funding for the RV Investigator to spend only 180 days at sea. That is just 60 per cent of the sea time per year that the vessel was designed for. For the sake of saving $7 million a year, the Abbott government has consigned the RV Investigator to spending an additional 120 days a year tied to a dock when it could be at sea making new discoveries to support our marine economy and environment. I am pleased that Hobart is the home port of the RV Investigator. However, we all need this ship to be out at sea doing the important scientific research it was designed to do. This government needs to properly fund the RV Investigator.

Again in my home state, Tony Abbott's budget cuts have attacked the University of Tasmania, Tasmania's only university. This budget reduces funding for undergraduate student places by 20 per cent, and this will cost Australia's universities $4.4 billion over four years from 2016. Research funding was also cut, with $263 million cut from the Sustainable Research Excellence program. This will impact on Tasmania dearly, with UTas cuts totalling $125 million over four years. In the 2015-16 year alone, UTas will see $13.9 million cut from the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, $2.9 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence program and $1.7 million from the Research Training Scheme. This is an absolute disgrace, and the government should be condemned very loudly for these savage cuts. Tasmania has a wonderful international reputation for research. These cuts, which are even more savage in the coming four years, will see jobs lost and our best and brightest researchers forced to leave Tasmania. That makes absolutely no sense. UTas Vice-Chancellor Peter Rathjen is clearly worried about the viability of the northern campuses under the Abbott government's plan for deregulation. Professor Rathjen said earlier this year:

We got cut again and, in particular, what got cut was the support for our research programs which hits us quite hard.

The huge 20 per cent cut to undergraduate places will mean Tasmanian students will suffer. Already UTas has nearly one-third of all its students coming from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. This is nearly double the national figure and the third highest in Australia, and it beggars belief that the Abbott government is going to deny more students from less well-off families the opportunity to go to university. UTas has a high proportion of mature-age students, who will also be forced to abandon their university studies because of the Abbott government's deregulation agenda.

The Abbott government has decided to de-fund National ICT Australia, or NICTA, from June 2016, which will see even more scientists and innovators lose their jobs. This will be another devastating blow to a science and innovation sector already reeling from savage cuts from the Abbott government. NICTA has been one of the most successful government industry research and innovation partnership organisations in Australia, and its abolition once again should be condemned. Nowhere in the world has an organisation that combines cutting-edge blue-sky research, training for hundreds of PhD students and industry-focused application been able to survive without government support. Labor is pleased that NICTA has found a path forward in a merger with CSIRO, although almost two-thirds of NICTA's 310 jobs might be lost. Labor strongly believes NICTA should never have been de-funded. This government is fuelling a science brain drain in our country and they do not even seem to realise.

The Abbott government is stuck in the past and its cuts have seen federal government investment in knowledge and innovation slip to its lowest level in 30 years. Australia now spends less on scientific research than the OECD average. This government has completely failed to understand and advocate for basic research, and it should be strongly condemned for this because the way Australia has become such a prosperous nation is through its strong investment in research and innovation. The way that Australia will remain prosperous nation is through strong investment in research and innovation.

This government just does not understand the importance of science to all sectors of the economy. Scientific research transforms practices in farming, in manufacturing, in medicine and health provision, in electronics and in communications. Research in science and technology will be the difference between Australians designing, refining, operating and maintaining the machines of the future or being replaced by them. Scientific research is the key for creating and sustaining the jobs of the future, but this government does not and will not understand the importance of Science. Labor does.

Labor has a vision. We have a vision of a clever future with a great national goal: to dedicate three per cent of our national GDP to research and development by the end of the next decade. We know that three in every four of the world's fastest growing occupations require STEM-skills and knowledge. Government, universities, research centres and industry must all work together to reach this goal.

In our schools participation in science subjects has fallen to the lowest level in 20 years and maths and science literacy has fallen. At the same time, other countries in our region continue to improve their results. In classrooms today about 40 per cent of teachers teaching science and maths to Australian students between years 7 to 10 do not have a tertiary qualification in the discipline. We need to improve this, and Labor will.

Labor will support better training for 25,000 current science, technology, engineering and maths teachers because we want our hardworking teachers to have the skills and the confidence to help more students fall in love with science. We will create 25,000 new scholarships for STEM graduates to encourage them to continue their study and become great teachers. Teach STEM will provide an incentive payment to attract more STEM graduates to become teachers. Students who have just completed a STEM degree or are within five years of graduation will be able to apply for a $15,000 incentive payment. Five thousand dollars will be paid upon commencement of the course of study, with the remaining paid after their first year in the classroom. We will also write off the student debts of 100,000 science, technology, engineering and maths students upon graduation. This will encourage more Australians, particularly women, to have the opportunity to study, work and teach in these fields.

Science will be at the centre of a Labor government not just in words but in actions. Science will underwrite jobs in health, education, construction, ICT, mining and agriculture as well as the jobs our children will do—in many cases jobs yet to be invented.

This government has failed the science and research sector. It has thoughtlessly cut funding to the current programs and agencies that provide a nationally significant role in improving all facets of Australian industries. It has failed to provide any vision for the future and failed to plan and fund the research that we need to create the jobs of the future, and it should be condemned for that also.

National Science Week is an important opportunity to lift the profile of science in our community. Unfortunately, this visionless government has completely failed in this area.

5:19 pm

Photo of Matthew CanavanMatthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I did want to speak this evening on the actual topic. I wanted to speak on science. I will still, hopefully, get to science, but Senator Bilyk spent just a bit under 20 minutes speaking about politics in a very misleading way. I think at the end she said Labor has a vision. She certainly had visions in that speech, because they were not actually based in fact at all! I want to point out a few of the mistruths in this and I might actually use some facts while I do that.

I picked up that Senator Bilyk said that there had been over $1 billion in cuts from R&D tax credits under this government. It surprised me a bit that she attributed those to this government, because they were actually announced by the previous government. Those cuts were their policy in government. To make sure that the Australian public know that I am not misleading the Senate, I actually have some facts here in front of me that Senator Bilyk did not have. I have a press release here from Mr Wayne Swan on 27 June 2013. He said:

The R&D Tax Incentive is one of the most important elements of the Government's support for our innovation system. It will continue to provide generous, easy-to-access support for around 10,000 companies each year who are undertaking eligible R&D.

This is the kicker:

The change will affect less than 20 corporate groups and will ensure this support is better targeted at small to medium businesses.

He was envisaging exactly what this government has done, which is focus the R&D tax credit on small and medium enterprises, not large companies. The press release went on to say:

Savings from the reforms - estimated at over $1 billion from 2014 to 2017 - will fund Government priorities including measures announced in the Government's Industry and Innovation Policy Statement, A Plan for Australian Jobs.

So Senator Bilyk has just spent a fair amount of time of her speech criticising Labor Party policy, which I am not objecting to. If that is how Senator Bilyk wants to use her time in this chamber, we should give her an extension of time. We should hear more from Senator Bilyk more often so that she can expose in more detail the deficiencies of Labor's approach to policymaking in this country.

I also heard Senator Bilyk say that CSIRO has had job losses, and it is a fact that CSIRO, unfortunately, has had job losses in the past few years. Again, what Senator Bilyk did not mention was that in fact, of the 1,000 reduction in staff numbers in CSIRO in the past few years, 600 of those actually occurred between 30 June 2013 and the end of 2014, almost completely during the Labor government except for those last few months of 2014.

Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | | Hansard source

She didn't say that.

Photo of Matthew CanavanMatthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

No, she didn't say that, Senator Ronaldson. I did not hear that, but I just wanted to check. Did you hear her say that? I might not have heard all of her speech, but I do not think she mentioned that 600 of those job losses were actually under the Labor government. Indeed, in the case of the other 400 jobs that unfortunately have been made redundant since, that was actually a consequence of the efficiency dividends the Labor Party put in place while in government. While they were in government they subjected government agencies and departments, not just the CSIRO but all government departments and agencies, to two efficiency dividends. I am not criticising that practice; that is something all governments do from time to time. But that was a decision they made, and the result of that decision is obviously that agencies and departments have to cut their costs. And when they have to cut their costs often they have to do so by cutting staffing costs, because labour costs are the biggest part of the budget for departments and agencies of the Commonwealth. They are only going to meet these efficiency dividends by reducing staff numbers. Senator Bilyk should know that. Certainly the government at the time would have known that. That would have been the advice they would have had from Treasury and Finance, and that was a consequence of their decision. They should have the guts to own up to the consequences of the decisions they made in government.

Senator Bilyk also mentioned the RV Investigator, a CSIRO vessel. Apparently we are not funding the RV Investigator as much as they did. Well, again, I have right here in front of me, from 2013-14, budget paper No. 2, which is the final budget that the Labor government announced before being dismissed at the last election. On page 214 there is a measure to do with the CSIRO—Marine National Facility operational funding. Under that measure it says:

The Government will provide $12.1 million to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) to conduct sea trials of Australia's new Marine National Facility (MNF) vessel, the RV Investigator.

So, they funded it by $12.1 million. What Senator Bilyk failed to outline is the funding they provided beyond 2013-13. What do you think it would have been, Senator Ronaldson, if you could hazard a guess? Senator Bilyk did not mention it, but presumably Senator Bilyk was expecting that the ship would continue to be used. She said it should be used 180 days a year, or something like that. That is how often she wants it to be used. You would think Senator Bilyk would have wanted the Labor government to actually fund it to get out for 180 days a year. But let's just look at the budget papers. There is a table, and under 2013-14 there is $12.1 million. Just to be clear for Senator Bilyk, under 2014-15, what number is there? Zero. Under 2015-16, what number is there? Zero. Under 2016-17, what number is there? Zero—three zeroes, three strikes for Senator Bilyk. No funding was provided by the former, Labor, government for the RV Investigator. We have provided funding for it—perhaps not as much as Senator Bilyk would have liked, but much, much more funding than her own government put forward for it. Indeed, it is so much more funding that you cannot even calculate it, because you cannot calculate a percentage of zero.

There is one final point I want to make about Senator Bilyk's contribution, and Senator Carr's as well, about the terrible impacts of funding cuts to the CSIRO. It is very interesting to point out that in 2008 Labor actually cut $63.4 million from the CSIRO budget. It is even more interesting that the then science and innovation minister, Senator Kim Carr, who now speaks so sanctimoniously about science funding, admitted that the cuts had to be tough 'because we are fighting a war on inflation'. Do you remember the war on inflation, Senator Ronaldson? That was a difficult war, wasn't it? That was a tough war that we all had to get through, in mid-2008. As soon as the war on inflation ended, what did they have next? I think they had a war on obesity. How did that one go, Senator Ronaldson? How is the war on obesity going for you? I am struggling a bit with that war! And then they had the building the education revolution. They were a very violent government. They had all these revolutions and wars. And then of course they had a coup, and they got rid of two Prime Ministers—and then another one for good measure.

So, that was the Labor government. They had a record of cutting funding to science and now they sanctimoniously come into this chamber and criticise this government for doing the same thing. They did indeed criticise them sometimes for implementing the very policies they announced only a few years ago. It has been an amazing road-to-Damascus conversion for the Labor Party in the past 18 months.

But I did actually want to speak on science, and I now have more-limited time to do so. But I would still like to do so, because I think it is important in National Science Week that we as representatives in our nation's parliament engage not just in politics here. So I am sorry I had to do that, but I did have to point out those errors. But I want to speak a little bit about science itself and how important it is, and my concerns at the state of science, not just here in Australia but around the world. I want to talk about a guy called Karl Popper, with whom I share some affinity, because Karl Popper once thought of himself as a communist—for a few days, apparently—and I, too, once thought of myself as a communist, although I think I might have sinned for a bit longer than a few days. When I started university I thought: 'Yep, communism; that's the way to go. Let's share the wealth, let's all be happy and not have competing interests and base capitalistic or profit-motive interests.' That is what I thought. I soon discovered I was wrong. When I met some communists I discovered that I was very, very wrong. I was a bit of a loner in high school in my Marxist days, but once I got to university there were some actual, real communists there, and when I met them I thought, 'These guys are on a different track than me.' So, I did learn. I did hopefully accede to the aphorism attributed to Churchill, I think it was, that if you are not a communist when you are 20 you do not have a heart and if you are still one when you are 30 you do not have a brain—and hopefully I have acceded to that.

That is probably where my affinity with Karl Popper ends, because Karl Popper, for those who do not know, was one of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, one of the most influential at least. I certainly will not achieve those goals—notwithstanding the fact that I certainly cannot be a great philosopher of the 20th century, having been born in 1980; I do not think I will be a great philosopher of the 21st century either. But what Karl Popper was famous for was the philosophy of science. I listened in the chamber earlier to Senator Rice's contribution. She is a scientist, and she spoke about how she is a scientist because she believes in rational and logical thought. I did not feel that Senator Rice succinctly or clearly summed up what her philosophy of science is. It is a very important thing to think about what science is. What does it mean? What can we take away from people that do science and apply science?

Karl Popper had quite a revolutionary idea: that science is not about creating conclusions from observing the real world; it is not about making positive or truthful statements about what we see around in the world; it is actually about putting forward hypotheses or, in more colloquial terms, conjectures, about the world and then trying to test them and seeing if they can be falsified. He used the example of Albert Einstein's theory. Einstein had a hypothesis that light would be distorted as it got close to solid bodies. That theory could be tested. It was tested during a solar eclipse—I think it might have been in the late 1910s or the 1920s. Much to the surprise of the scientific community, who at the time largely agreed with Newtonian physics, Einstein was proven correct. At least his theory was not falsified—the Newtonian theory that light was a constant and would not change was falsified. So we went from having a Newtonian view of the theory of light to having a relative view, which Einstein established.

Popper compared the theories of Einstein to those of another famous thinker of the time, Sigmund Freud, who invented psychoanalysis. He compared them usefully and said that the theories of psychoanalysis could not be falsified. Sigmund Freud and his followers did not make predictions that could be tested and falsified. That is not to say that Freud's theories are useless or should not still be studied and considered. But it does clarify what it means to be scientific. What does science mean? Science in Popper's view—and it is a view that I definitely think has some merit—is about having those testable and verifiable conjectures and then subjecting them to real-world data. With Freud's theory of psychoanalysis that could not be done, so that was not science.

Popper described his theory as 'critical rationalism'. It was about being rational, of course, and providing rational data, and it was about taking a critical view of those theories. It was not just inductivism. It was not just saying that because the sun has risen every day since I was the born, or since the start of time, tomorrow the sun will also rise. That is induction. That is saying that because something has happened every time before, it will happen again in the future. Popper said that that is not actually science. Science is saying that we put up a theory that the sun will rise tomorrow and we do not know whether it is true or not until we get up tomorrow and see if it has risen. That statement is scientific because it can be falsified. It is a verifiable statement.

Popper's theories led to a real revolution in science. Before Popper we thought about science in an inductive way. We would think about science as being logical, as Senator Rice established. We would be able to say statements in science like, 'If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.' That would be a scientific statement, because you would be inducing something from certain established facts. After Popper you were more likely to characterise science in a falsifying or disconfirming manner. So we would say things like, 'If Socrates is a god then Socrates is immortal. Socrates is not immortal, therefore Socrates is not a god.' We would use the negative to think about scientific theories.

Popper's theory is that we cannot prove that a conjecture is true. There is no way of doing that. All we can do is proof that it is false. If a conjecture is proven not to be true, then the above logic is used to dismiss that conjecture. I think a couple of quotes from Popper help sum this up more usefully. One that I like is:

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.

Another quote from Popper that I like is:

Whenever a theory appears to you as being the only possible true one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

I like this last quote, because even though it was written in the 1950s, I think it usefully sums up some of the problems that I have with our modern approach to science and particularly the language around it. We are often told that the science has spoken. Indeed, Senator Rice emoted science as some transient being, almost—science is shaking its hands or science is doing certain things. Science does not do any such thing. If you agree with Popper's theories, which I largely do, science can only ever make conjectures or hypotheses, not conclusions, not anything precisely true.

We can usefully base our understanding of the world on those conjectures that have withstood testing and are yet to be falsified. These statements are often made about many different areas of science. We often think science does many different things. I want to touch on the subject that is most commonly put up to a lack of scientific scrutiny, in my view, and that is climate change. I think it is important, because whenever you talk about climate change there is a propensity to distort and deceive what someone has said about it. I want to put on the record what I think at the moment. I am not a scientist, so I do not know, but I have read quite a bit of the literature.

There certainly appears to be evidence that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. That can be tested—you can do that in the lab and people do to that in the lab. Carbon dioxide certainly warms atmospheres in a laboratory environment. It is much different, though, to conclude that the increase in carbon dioxide emissions that we have experienced on our planet have caused an increase in global temperatures. It is a much, much different hypothesis again to say that these increases will cause catastrophic global warming that leads to extreme weather events, the deaths of polar bears and, apparently, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, will lead to bread not rising as much as it has in the past.

Senator Ronaldson interjecting

I hear you laughing, Senator Ronaldson. I do not exaggerate. Indeed, if I were a schoolboy right now, I would love climate change, because instead of saying that the dog ate my homework, I could just say that climate change did it. It explains so many things these days, apparently.

These hypotheses are conjectures that are made. We can test whether in future bread will rise as much as it has in the past, but of course we cannot do that until the future. What I am concerned about, though, is not that climate change science does not generate falsifiable conclusions—it is that when it does, and the theories are tested and an answer comes back different, the goalposts get moved. There have been modelled predictions from climate change scientists in the last 20 years, and almost all of them have been proven to be far too exaggerated. The temperature on whatever series you use, whether it is HadCRUT, UAH, RSS—these are all measures of global temperatures—has been proven to not rise in line with the theories. So we can conjecture and we can debate whether they have been falsified, but they certainly have not been verified at this stage, and there certainly needs to be a lot more work done in this field.

What concerns me most about this debate is that we speak often about climate change as if we know it all, and we certainly do not know it all. I studied philosophy at university and I was a great fan of Socrates and his dialogues. His most famous idea was that true wisdom is to know that you do not know it all. And we certainly do not know it all. There is much that we do not know about the universe, and that is why we need science to continue to explore and understand more about our universe.

I just want to conclude our contribution to this debate with a final remark from Karl Popper on this subject which I think usefully captures this wisdom. Karl Popper said once: 'For it was my master who taught me not only how very little I knew but also that any wisdom to which I might ever aspire could consist only in realising more fully the infinity of my ignorance.'

5:38 pm

Photo of Chris KetterChris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to support this notice of motion and join in congratulating the organisers of National Science Week and the over 1,000 organisers who have arranged events around the nation aimed at engaging Australians of all ages with the wonders of science. In this week it would be wonderful to have a government which demonstrated a vision and a plan when it came to science and research. Instead we have a government which has demonstrated short-sighted cuts totalling more than a billion dollars in these areas in its first two budgets.

It would be wonderful to celebrate a government which understood the importance of Australia's publicly funded research agencies. Instead we have a government which is actively seeking to undermine those agencies, slashing funding and jobs. It would be wonderful to have a government which understood and advocated for basic research. But we have a government which is a complete failure in that regard. And it would be wonderful in this week to celebrate a government which had a vision or a commitment for the future when it came to creating and sustaining the jobs of the future. Again, we have a government which has demonstrated its inability to move in that direction. In short, we have a government which is an embarrassment.

Going back to National Science Week, we know that it is our annual celebration of science and technology and that thousands of individuals, from students and scientists to chefs and musicians, are involved. Science Week is a great opportunity to recognise how important it is to promote and invest in science in our schools, universities, TAFE and industry. It also aims to encourage an interest in science pursuits among the general public and to encourage younger people to become fascinated by the world in which we live. We have seen the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, visiting the students at Canberra College this week to celebrate National Science Week.

National Science Week runs each year in August and features more than 1,000 events across Australia, including events in my own state from Edge Hill to Macleay Island. I encourage everyone to log onto the excellent Science Week website for information. Although Science Week officially continues until 23 August, I note that on the website you will find a number of very interesting activities which will continue beyond that date. En-lightening Engineering at Saint Benedict's College at Mango Hill runs until 31 August. We have an Australian bat clinic open week which runs until 23 August at Advancetown. We have a sound map for National Science Week at South Bank which runs until 23 August. We have already had a storm chasing presentation at Banyo library. I also want to mention a wonderful opportunity to meet our scientists at the Queensland Museum and Sciencentre at South Brisbane. There are some fantastic opportunities to celebrate Science Week and it would be good to celebrate all of those things.

In his contribution Senator Canavan laments the fact that we actually want to talk about the politics and the government in our speech, but it is important in this place that we do look at this important issue. It is such an important issue for the future. We know that it is important for us to have a government which properly invests in this area. But after two great years of government—as the government has indicated—what have we got at the moment? Unemployment is up from 5.7 per cent to 6.3 per cent. For the first time in 20 years 800,000 Australians are out of work. The Australian economy is stuck in below-trend growth of 2.3 per cent. We have new taxes and charges. The tax to GDP ratio is the highest it has been since Prime Minister Howard's time and it is rising each and every budget year. Consumer sentiment is 11 per cent below where it was at the election and the budget deficit doubled in just the last 12 months.

It has not been a good two years for science either, and I note that Senator Bilyk has touched on a number of these things. In the last two years $114 million has been cut from the CSIRO. The Australian Research Council has had a $75 million cut. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has had a $27½ million cut. The Cooperative Research Centres program has been cut by $80 million. The Research Training Scheme has been cut by $173.7 million. Commercialisation Australia has been abolished and had a $260 million cut. National ICT Australia is to be abolished, with a cut of $84 million. Geoscience Australia has had a $16.1 million cut. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation has had a cut of $120 million. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has had a smaller cut, comparatively speaking, of $8 million, but having been to the Australian Institute of Marine Science near Townsville earlier in the year I must say that this is an area where I am particularly disappointed. I did take the opportunity to have a look at the National Sea Simulator at the AIMS facility. The National Sea Simulator is a world-class marine research aquarium facility for tropical marine organisms, in which scientists can conduct cutting-edge research. Using the SeaSim, as it is called, Australian and international scientists can research the impact of complex environmental changes with large, long-term experiments in which they can manipulate key environmental factors. It is a world-class facility, and I know that it is the envy of many other nations who would like to have that type of facility. The history of the SeaSim is that in 2010 the Australian government awarded the AIMS funding for the development of the National Sea Simulator through the Super Science Marine and Climate Initiative, with support from the Education Investment Fund. Having seen that firsthand, it is very disappointing for me to see the AIMS having to scale back the use of the newly opened National Sea Simulator and reducing research on marine biodiversity.

Well over $3 billion in funding were slashed from programs, research and organisations. What concerns me is this government's clear contempt for science. The rest of the world seems to be bemused by this government's contemptuous attitude towards science. Senator Canavan elaborated on the scepticism in relation to areas where there is a high degree of consensus amongst the leading scientists. We only have to look at this government's approach to climate change. Going further, how could we forget the education minister, who earlier this year proudly held Future Fellowships and research infrastructure funding hostage to his ideological pursuit of university deregulation and $100,000 degrees. Holding a political gun to the head of Australia's most eminent researchers—that was the 'fixer's' fix. Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt, summed it up perfectly when he said, 'This is not the way a grown-up country behaves.' I think senators are aware of the comments from BCA President Catherine Livingstone, in March of this year. She said:

… how have we come to this? … How have we come to a point where a government feels it can use assets, publically funded to the tune of over $2 billion, as a hostage in a political process? … Where it is prepared to jeopardise over 1500 highly skilled research jobs and the continuing operation of 27 national facilities? … Shame on us.

And I say shame on the government for that terrible and irresponsible approach.

Unfortunately all we have seen from this government is one attack after another. In the government's first budget it sought to cut almost $900 million from science and research, and unfortunately the government's second budget did little to reverse the savage cuts of the first budget. But in contrast, Labor does have a proud record on science and research. The Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables, which were released earlier this month, show that investment under Labor increased by more than 50 per cent between 2007-8 and 2013-14. In stark contrast, the current government is projecting that its investment in Australia's innovation capacity will actually fall by 3.7 per cent over its first two years.

Labor is looking to the future, unlike the current government. We know that 75 per cent of the fastest growing occupations today require skills in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM. Employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow at almost twice the pace of other occupations. Yet in 2012, only 16 per cent of higher education students in Australia graduated in STEM-related subjects, compared with 52 per cent in Singapore and 41 per cent in China. Labor has announced initiatives that will prepare our children, our workforce and our industries for the changing economy. These policies align closely with the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute's recommendations to boost Australia's mathematics capacity.

I think senators are aware of Labor's approaches in respect of STEM teacher training. We will establish a fund to support 25,000 primary and secondary school teachers over five years to undertake professional development in STEM disciplines. We will encourage STEM graduates by offering 25,000 'teach STEM' scholarships over five years to address the shortage of qualified teachers. We will provide 100,000 STEM award degrees, 20,000 a year for five years, which will provide a financial incentive for students to enrol in and complete a STEM undergraduate degree, in recognition of the significant public benefit of growing Australia's STEM capacity. These are the sorts of things which a government that is fair dinkum about these types of issues should be doing, but it is left to Labor to chart a more responsible approach when it comes to science research and innovation. Giving every child in Australia the opportunity to learn coding and computational thinking in school is a visionary approach, and we have announced initiatives that will prepare Australia for the future.

But unfortunately, in contrast, the government continues to be stuck in the past. I noted that, in response to Labor's initiatives with respect to coding in schools, this year in question time the Prime Minister—when he says 'he' he is referring to the opposition leader—said:

He says that he wants primary school kids to be taught coding so that they can get the jobs of the future. Does he want to send them all out to work at the age of 11? Is that what he wants to do?

That is an infantile response to a legitimate issue which has been not only raised by Labor but supported by the Chief Scientist.

As our economy responds to technological change, it is vital that all Australians are sk illed to be able to participate and secure jobs today and well into the future. Digital proficiency will be a foundation skill as important as reading and numeracy. It will increasingly be the determinant of employment prospects and opportunity.

The Australian Workforce Productivity Agency predicts that in 2025 there could be an undersupply of qualifications for key ICT occupations, with employment projected to grow between 64 and 72 per cent faster than overall employment growth and account for around five per cent of all employment in 2025. Business leaders, industry, demographers and the Chief Scientist are urging for immediate action to prepare for this future demand. Key to this, they say, is to improve dig ital literacy in schools and embed coding in the Australian Curriculum from primary school. Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said:

If the digital economy is an arena, then the skills you need to play include computer programming and coding. Informatics gives us these skills and this event highlights the global nature a nd ferocity of the competition.

The Australian Computer Society said:

In ten years' time, it will be the most common language in the world. You need to teach a language as early as possible to allow for maximum fluency in a child.

Yet there is concern about whether Australian schools are prepared to respond to this challenge. Around 20,000 teachers in science, maths and IT classes never studied these subjects at university.

European countries are investigating this issue and over 12 of them already have computer programing and coding as part of their curriculum and a further seven are in the process of introducing it. Countries, including New Zealand and Singapore , are in the process of including coding in the curriculum. Computer programming and coding is already part of the primary curriculum in England, Belgium , Finland, Estonia, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece.

Labor has a very sound approach to science and innovation. I also wish to indicate that I am very pleased with the approach of the Queensland state Labor government with respect to their commitment to science. This is the way that a government should be behaving. They have announced a $180 million investment in innovation, skills, education, business development and start - ups to diversify the Queensland economy and deliver knowledge based jobs now and into the future.

Unlike the Abbott g overnment, the Queensland g overnment is focused on harnessing the opportunities that are available in start-ups, innovation businesses and our science and research base so that the Queensland workers of today will have access to the new jobs of the future. I also note they have $50 million set aside to develop, attract and retain world-class talent and skills by delivering new research fellowships and scholarships to increase research talent ; the Global Partnership Awards to support collaboration between Queensland graduates and entrepreneurs with international companies and institutions ; a future schools review of the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths, including coding and computational science, ICT and robotics so that our kids have the jobs of the future ; and 9 Knowledge Transfer Partnerships to link industry and universities through funding opportunities for small and medium enterprises to have postgraduate students work ing in their business on an identified problem or project.

In conclusion , to ensure Australia rema ins competitive internationally, we need a federal government that will make education a national priority. Instead, as I have indicated, we have seen the g overnment make savage cuts to schools , universities, vocational education and research.

This government is an anti-science government . Australia needs to look to the future. This government has no plan for science or innovation. We need a government that truly understands the importance of science, research and innovation for the future economic welfare of our country. We need a government that is committed to supporting these vital areas. This government's cuts will stand condemned by history.

5:57 pm

Photo of Sean EdwardsSean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak about science and Science Week in particular. I note in the chamber the presence of Minister Ronaldson who has the carriage of Minister MacFarlane's portfolio of science and industry in this place and through the Senate estimates process.

It is a complete celebration to have these inspirational people in front of me three times a year. They range from, as Senator Ketter pointed out, the quite amazing mind and capacity of the Chief Scientist—currently, Professor Ian Chubb—whom I have known for some 30 year and watched his career progress to the pinnacle of what it is today—to Dr Adi Paterson, the chief of ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I have also listened to him and he also has a very inspiring science mind.

We also cover CSIRO and, unlike what Senator Canavan asserted, our minister is very much aware of our place in the global science race. I heard Senator McGrath's earlier contribution and he was very articulate in pointing out where the failures of the past government were.

With my remaining 40 seconds, Senator Ketter, I will just let you know that in dealing, as I am, with in the nuclear space right now, the minds of these people in our science space are some of the best in the world, and people around the world tell me that. Our commitment to science and to Science Week is never been as profound as it is today from the minister. I suggest everybody get behind Science Week and applaud it in Australia's economy.

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.