Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Greenway proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's cuts to innovation, science and research hampering Australia's economic growth and productivity and hurting Australia's small businesses.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would otherwise be delighted to rise on this occasion for a discussion on the topic of small business as a driver of innovation and productivity in our economy, but unfortunately in the context of this MPI that is not the case. It is not the case in the context of the destructive policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. This matter of public importance highlights the damaging cuts made to innovation programs, science and research, and the failure, when it comes this government, of getting these settings right for Australian small businesses.

The starting point is this: this government talks a big game when it comes to innovation and small business and investment in the sector—a big game with a lot of buzzwords; a big game with a lot of adjectives. But here is the rub: all that talk and enthusiasm will only get you so far, and, let's face it, the previous minister for small business cannot be matched by the current one when it comes to enthusiasm. You only had to see his impassioned 90 second statement on Shop Small, which I fully endorse, to understand his level of enthusiasm. It actually makes you wonder: 'Why did they get rid of him?' On that note, this side of the House would like to pay tribute to the former minister for small business and congratulate him on the enthusiasm that he brought to the portfolio. But on that note, it is tangible results that matter.

We can look at the track record of this government when it comes to the damaging impact on economic growth, on innovation and on productivity, hurting Australia's small businesses as a result of its short-sighted cuts over the past two years. It is a sad state of affairs. First you have the horror show of the 2014 budget, backed in unequivocally by the now Prime Minister. It will long be remembered for its unfairness and its damage to the Australian economy.

But let us not forget the truly backward decisions that were made when it comes to innovation and the impact this has had on our entrepreneurs and the impact it continues to have on the small business community. Let us look at some of the specific damage that was done: reductions in the value of the R&D Tax Incentive, estimated to be at around $1.7 billion in lost incentives for business to invest in R? abolition of Commercialisation Australia; abolition of the Innovation Investment Fund; abolition of Enterprise Connect; abolition of Industry Innovation Precincts—the word 'abolition' will appear a lot here; abolition of Enterprise Solutions and Researchers in Business; and replacing a number of these programs, including by the ill-conceived Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Program—now just the Entrepreneurs' Program—which tries to deliver similar programs to Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia but with around half the funding. What short-sightedness. What lack of ambition for our entrepreneurs and our small businesses in Australia from this government.

Those opposite will have you believe that they are delivering on an action plan on these very issues, and it gives me an opportunity to note a significant anniversary. It is a significant anniversary today. I am sure everyone on the opposite side of the House is aware of it, because I would like to say, 'Happy first birthday to the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda.' Who even knew it existed? What has been done? A year in, what has been done? Do you know the word that is used in here most of all? It is a series of 'ambitions'. Well, an ambition is a thought that you have when you are not prepared to back it up with commitments. That is the story of these governments. I would like to go through just a few here. We have, for example, the Entrepreneurs' Infrastructure Program which I just mentioned, an ill-conceived idea supposed to deliver outcomes similar to Enterprise Connect and Commercialisation Australia—both abolished—with about half the funding. We have the Industry Growth Centres, a scaled-down version of the 12 innovation precincts, now cut down to five, established under Labor in our own jobs package, but now, under this government, with about half the funding.

Just as an aside, because I just cannot resist: we have in here under the heading of 'Boosting parents' participation in the workforce'—this is a special:

Actions to come:

Not only did they ditch that one, they put $1 billion in cuts for paid parental leave on the table. But the reality is: it is hardly surprising that you do not hear small business or the relevant sectors talking up this series of ambitions—it is all ambition, no commitment.

I want to mention the important issue of commercialisation, widely recognised as the key area in which government has a role to play in helping small business to transition the good idea to the market. Australians and Australian small businesses are innovative and creative, but, when it comes to commercialisation, small business is badly let down by this government. In government, Labor was providing support through Commercialisation Australia, helping companies, entrepreneurs and inventors take up opportunities and create exciting new products and services. That was until this government, in an act of sheer economic vandalism, ripped $260 million from it in their budget.

You do not have to take it from me; have a look at this ABC news report from 2 September 2014, which focuses on a very important company, Global Kinetics, which had developed a wristband having an impact on those living with Parkinson's. The report begins by quoting Andrew Maxwell, the Chief Executive of Global Kinetics, saying:

"A small Australian company that took a research project through to now being a product being marketed in more than 12 countries around the world, I think that's a great measure of success …

The report goes on:

However, he says it might not have happened without $1.3 million in Federal Government funding from Commercialisation Australia.

This was under Labor. The report continues:

The grants program was scrapped it the latest budget, along with the Innovation Investment Fund, which co-invested in venture capital funds.

Mr Maxwell says it is disappointing.

"It gives a turbo boost—

I have heard that before—

if you like, to the amount of money that you've got in the business and it enables you to manage your programs and get into the market much quicker …

The report goes on to quote an expert here, Kevin Cullen, from the University of New South Wales's New South Innovations, who says the cuts by this government:

… seemed like a very strange thing to do, given that all of the other developed countries in the world are investing in innovation …

When we talk about innovation and when we talk about this so-called agenda, let us remember an area that was sadly missing from this government's document. This is something I wrote on a year ago, to the day—the absolute neglect of the role of ICT in all of this. As I wrote, the evidence consistently shows that the ICT sector is one of the biggest drivers of growth and innovation in an economy. It is considered to be a gateway growth sector, not only a growth sector in its own right but one which facilitates other, often entirely unrelated sectors to innovate and expand.

The other interesting thing that I liked in this Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda's set of ambitions is how they describe ICT. It is probably the only time ICT, or something close to it, is mentioned. It is in the context of the National Broadband Network. It says that they have:

Recalibrated the National Broadband Network to use the most cost effective technology to allow a faster and more affordable rollout.

Faster! It has doubled the cost. Where is this rollout under this Prime Minister?

What needs to be remembered is the importance that small businesses place on having accessible and affordable access to broadband. It needs to be remembered that something like two-thirds of small businesses are sole traders, many of whom work from home, as we on this side who work from home and rely on accessible and affordable broadband know. We now have the Prime Minister who promised—he went to the last election saying—we were going to get it faster, sooner and more affordably. Fail! Fail! Fail! Not only that, he promised to prioritise areas of need, including geographical areas, including small businesses, including those regions that were chronically underserved. Fail! Fail! Fail on every count!

What we have from this government is all talk when it comes to supporting innovation and small business. All the buzzwords that they like will not cover up having a government which has absolutely no commitment in ensuring the long-term future—not only the sustainability but the growth—of our small business sector. You do not have to take it from me. We know how important this is from speaking to our own constituents. If we want to harness the future prosperity of this nation, if we want our small business men and women—those innovators in our electorates—to be able to grow and thrive and have their businesses grow from small businesses to even larger ones, we need to ensure that they are supported by a government which does not just cut in the most short-sighted manner, which does not just take all the opportunities that Labor put forward, in terms of technology and being able to have the highest quality broadband, and lay that to waste. We have had exactly that under this government, and it is a disgrace.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very exciting to be able to rise in this chamber to have a debate, a contest of ideas, about how we can embrace innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. But I am somewhat saddened. I am somewhat disappointed. I do not think that the shadow minister for small business has quite got the memo yet: politics is changing for the better in this country.

The Australian people, when they look at this chamber, want us to use this chamber as an opportunity to debate ideas, and I know that there are members and shadow ministers opposite who agree with me. They believe that we should use this chamber as an opportunity to debate and contest ideas about how we can make our country as good as it can be. The shadow minister has just had 10 minutes at the dispatch box. Colleagues, how many ideas were raised in the last 10 minutes? In her 10 minutes at the dispatch box, I do not think we saw a single idea raised in this chamber. The Australian people want to see this change.

Earlier in the year, the Leader of the Opposition made a very bold statement. He said that this would be the year of big ideas. I think the Australian people want to see that. I will give credit where it is due. The Leader of the Opposition wants to see big ideas debated in this chamber. All members should be using this chamber to debate those ideas. But if the only idea that the Labor Party is putting forward is adding more zeros to the government chequebook that is not good enough.

As a first principle, when we talk about our entrepreneurs, when we talk about our small business owners, I have to make a simple admission. I have never met one entrepreneur, I have never met one small business owner, who has said to me, 'If only the government became more involved in my business, if only the government became more involved in my enterprise, it would be more successful.' The first principle when it comes to supporting innovation and entrepreneurship should be: how can the government act as an enabler? How can the government get out of our entrepreneurs' way so that they can get on and do the great things that they are already achieving?

When we look around the world and look at where we are seeing successful innovation, where we are seeing enterprise supported, where we are seeing significant outcomes in research and science, wherever the government acts they act with the private sector in partnership. We should not have an approach where, simply, a cheque from Canberra is the solution to innovation and entrepreneurship. We should always be looking to partner with the private sector.

If we look to the United States, for example, a country that is achieving significant outcomes when it comes to the commercialisation of their ideas, they are achieving significant outcomes when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. The United States and our country, on a per capita basis, have about the same number of scientists and researchers. But when we compare those that work for the government with those that work for the private sector we actually see inverse proportions. So, even though we have about the same number of scientists and the same number of researchers in the United States as in our country, in the United States we see a far greater proportion working in the private sector. By partnering with government, by using government has an enabler, and not simply just expecting a big cheque from the government without any private sector involvement, the United States has been able to become a world-class leader in innovation, in science and in research.

One of the members opposite mentioned Israel earlier. If we look to Israel, in many ways it is the start-up nation. It is the world leader when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. On a per capita basis they have more entrepreneurs than any other country on earth—yet it is a country of only eight million people that has no natural resources. When you look at the NASDAQ, after the United States, Israel has more companies listed than any other country on earth and more than the next seven countries combined. Why are they having so much success? It is not because of big cheques from government. It is because the government has got out of the way of the entrepreneurs. It is because the government has partnered with the private sector. In Israel—and the shadow minister is leaving the chamber, but this is a very important point to realise—we are actually seeing declining investment from the government but overall increasing investment because you have private sector engagement when it comes to partnering with the government to achieve these innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes for that country. Surely if in the country that is having the greatest success when it comes to supporting innovators and entrepreneurs they are realising that the government's role is not to get in the way, dictate or pick winners but to act as an enabler then that is something we can achieve.

This is the debate and contest of ideas we should see across this table. I know members on both sides of this chamber want to see a greater embrace of innovation and entrepreneurship. But in order for us to have that discussion members opposite have to actually put some ideas on the table. I challenge the members opposite—there are more speakers on this MPI—to provide some ideas in this discussion.

The reality is the government is spending a great deal when it comes to innovation, entrepreneurship, science and research. We are already investing $9.7 billion in this year alone in science, research and innovation. That puts us above the OECD average. Surely, if we are spending above average OECD figures when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship, the question has to be asked: why is it that we are not seeing the gains that we need to see when it comes to leading the globe in the commercialisation of our great ideas? This country has an amazing record of fantastic research and great ideas. We are not achieving a global standard to the level that we should when it comes to the commercialisation of those ideas and turning those ideas into the enterprises, businesses and services to change the world for the better.

If the only policy solution that the Labor Party has is to add more zeros to the government chequebook, I do not think that is going to achieve the outcomes that we need to see. The figures speak for themselves. We are not achieving what we need to see, despite spending $9.7 billion in this year alone. The reality that this is where we can have this contest of ideas, this competitive tension when it comes to policy creation, is the main reason we should be having this debate today. If we want to be a more prosperous nation, if we want to be a nation that will continue to see rising living standards, it is incredibly important that we do not allow fear to define our response to a changing world. The shadow minister spent 10 minutes using fear as her political weapon. The Australian people want to see something more than that. If we are going to embrace innovation and entrepreneurship, we need to see a change in culture. We need to embrace entrepreneurial spirit in our collective psyche. Government has a role to play in that. The business sector has a role to play in that. These are the sorts of ideas that we should be embracing.

If we look at our start-up community in this country we will see that start-ups are not crying out for just more money from government. They want to see private sector involvement. Last year Australians spent about $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. We in this country are not afraid of having a punt. We spent $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. But we only invested, through venture capital, about $100 million on our start-ups. If you go out into the start-up community you will find that they are desperate to see a greater investment of capital into their start-ups. What is the government's role? It is not just to add some more zeros to chequebook. The government's role is to create the framework and set the taxation settings that will encourage that investment in our great entrepreneurs. Obviously, if they are involved with the private sector and are finding customers in a growing global marketplace, that is where they are going to achieve the success they so desperately need.

We also—and I think we could have some agreement across the table on this—need to grow our talent pool. We are incredibly lucky that we have so many bright, talented and, I might say, occasionally young people in this country who are prepared to go out there and have a go. They are prepared to develop the skill sets that are needed in STEM and the digital and tech skill sets that we need. We need to be doing everything in our power to grow that talent pool in our country.

The other thing—and we should not be afraid of this—is that we should be a magnet for the best and brightest people across the globe. It is not just how much money the government spends that will attract people. A harsh reality here is that we do not have as much money to spend as many other countries when it comes to attracting the best and brightest, but we have natural advantages, such as our lifestyle. If we get our taxation settings and employment settings right, we can attract the best and brightest people from across the globe.

Finally, we need to see greater cooperation between the government, higher education, science, research and particularly the private sector, because that is where we will see global success. That is how we will achieve greater innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night I had the pleasure to attend the Sydney university INCUBATE Demo Day, which had eight young enterprising start-ups pitch their ideas for investment to try to attract investment support for their planned businesses. INCUBATE has had a great track record of success. It was actually initially supported by the student union at Sydney university because Sydney university did not want to support INCUBATE. It is supporting it now. It is being run by James Alexander and a great bunch of people.

Last night at their Demo Day one of the youngest start-ups was recognised by Lenovo. It won the entrepreneurs award. This start-up was set up by two people who met in high school. They started university this year. They put together their company, Fluid Education, and they started an app. They have 1,000 users already. There would be some people in this place who would have enough trouble getting 1,000 Twitter followers, and these people have users already. These young people have already demonstrated their capability to start up a business.

These are the type of people who are at the forefront of our thinking on the Labor side. I am happy to say to the start-ups and the entrepreneurs in this country that are trying to change the way our economy works, trying to create new jobs and build better communities that they have a voice in Labor. They have our attention. This is the first time a ministerial or shadow ministerial position has recognised start-ups in the line-up. Start-ups have been recognised for the first time. Small business is important to recognise, but it is also important to recognise start-ups. It is not just in name; it is in action. It is not just about talking the talk; it is about walking the walk.

If the assistant minister wants ideas, we have released two waves of policies already. The budget reply speech was warmly received by the start-up community because it focused on the fact that we need to build the talent pool in this country.

The way to do it is to do it early: to get young people focused on computational thinking and on coding, and get that into primary schools—derided, I might add, by the former Prime Minister, who had to backtrack because wiser heads on that side of the fence recognised that this was not a smart policy and that we do need to get younger people focused on coding.

We have announced support for STEM and getting more people into science, technology, engineering and mathematics training. We announced, for example, the creation of a start-up year that would ensure not just that we would attack the low level of start-up formation in this country but also that we would break down the culture that works against people thinking they can start their own enterprise. More important than anything else is the start-up year creating 2,000 new start-ups.

It is also in dealing with, for example, capital flows. We have announced that our policy would be to create an innovation-investment partnership, which would bring together superannuation funds and the VC sector to work out how to pull down the barriers that exist in one of the biggest savings pools on the planet—$2 trillion in superannuation. How do we get them to invest more in early-stage investment, right here? If you want ideas, we have them and more, assistant minister. We will be bringing more.

Mr Pitt interjecting—

I might ask the member for Hinkler: what is your record on innovation? As much as you call us for ideas, let us look at what you have done. Just on innovation: reductions in the value of R? abolish Commercialisation Australia. The assistant minister has become great friends with Doron Ben-Meir but his government rid him of Commercialisation Australia. He is now in MAP at the University of Melbourne after having seen all the funds cut out of Commercialisation Australia and being gutted. They abolished Enterprise Connect. They cut $45 million from clean technology programs and abolished industry-innovation precincts.

You want ideas? Here is an idea: don't keep cutting innovation if you want the country to be more innovative. You cannot have a policy hackathon, assistant minister, if you are going to say at the table that we are not about spending money. The people who are attending will want to know what support they will get for ideas.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More money!

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, assistant minister, because you and I do have these conversations. Start-ups want government to do the things they do well: support education, improve capital flows, reduce regulatory barriers and make sure we are an innovative nation. (Time expired)

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am filled with optimism for the future, particularly in science. There is no way that my enthusiasm is going to be dragged down by negativity from anywhere. We are in the best possible place we can be, in this nation, and we need to get behind and support our fabulous researchers and scientists as they go out there and do world firsts in their research. I am here to tell a very positive story about what this government is doing and what I know it will do in the future to support scientists and researchers.

We have heard the figure of $9.7 billion that this government has invested in science. That is the budget estimate for 2015-16, so it may well be higher than that depending on what happens with the R&D tax incentive and how that plays out. There are a significant number of businesses that have registered and we believe there is a very high take-up of that particular tax incentive, so the figure may well be higher than the $9.7 billion. That compares to $9.5 billion in 2012-13. It takes into account that there was an efficiency dividend of just over two per cent, which was applied to CSIRO.

I will happily talk more about CSIRO, which is a great institution and I certainly support it. It will go from strength to strength. We are delivering record funding for CSIRO. We are providing $3.1 billion over the forward estimates, which is an increase of nearly $50 million to CSIRO over the forward estimates. That is a pretty good outcome. We are also focusing on some really critical areas, things that are so desperately needed if we are to become the productive nation we are destined to be. I have spent quite a bit of time over the last 12 months and well beyond that talking to many of our scientists and researchers about the issues that are important to them.

I will preface what I am about to say by making a couple of comments on innovation. Innovation is front and centre of what this government will be achieving over the coming years. Innovation is something we need to embrace. We need to look at start-ups but we need to be very conscious that there are many businesses out there doing wonderful and exciting things that are clearly innovative. We need to be doing what we can to promote their work and demonstrate that there are many things—processes, procedures, systems and technology—already out there that will help these businesses become innovative.

Recently, I was up in Bundaberg with the member for Hinkler. He put on an absolutely fantastic community science forum. Well done on that. It was very well attended. One of the things we did at that forum was listen to a number of businesses that were doing some wonderful work in the Bundaberg area. One of the standouts for me—and there were quite a few that day—was Sweet Sensations Farm. We heard from the farm manager, Craig Van Rooyen, who has been working closely with Central Queensland University. He is trialling a non-lethal method of pest management in his orchards. He is using drones to scare off the bats, particularly the flying foxes. It is a non-lethal method and uses existing technology. He is adapting that and using it in agriculture. That is very innovative. He is leading in that area of non-lethal pest management. That is just one of the examples we heard about that day. So innovation is something we have to look at in its broadest possible STEM.

There are many things this government is focusing on. I am happy to talk at length about STEM but we understand that our early- and mid-career scientists need our support. We understand the role of basic and fundamental research. We understand that science deserves—and is demanding, rightfully—that there should be a long-term decadal plan. I can assure our science community that we are there supporting you.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In many areas of policymaking we have clear and admitted divisions between us and the government, but here they are trying to blur the lines. Under Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister we hear much talk of optimism, of exciting times. But that masks an unwillingness to grapple with the real issues facing Australia: our real productivity challenges, in respect of which innovation is the key. We agree on this much. But we have heard two speakers—two assistant ministers, as they are now called—talk around the problems. I understand the assistant minister who led off this debate for the government talking about exciting times—they are exciting times for him, as they are for the new Prime Minister, but they are not for many Australians. These are not times in which we can be as confident as we should be about our future, because the work is not being done. We have before us a government which has a rhetoric that is full of confidence. But it is misplaced confidence, because the vision for the future is empty. We see a profound failure to invest—indeed, to have confidence in our people and in ideas, as we have seen from the contribution of the assistant minister in particular—and a failure to have confidence in our future direction. This is a stark contrast with Labor's record—Labor's record in government and Labor's continuing leadership in opposition under Bill Shorten.

On the Labor side we have a record in terms of innovation that we are very proud of. Under the previous Labor governments we built a national approach to fostering innovation, with a 50 per cent increase in our investment in research and science and innovation over the period of Labor government. We will come to what has happened under this government shortly. Under Labor we saw a massive expansion of involvement in higher education, the critical building block of a successful innovation future. We saw the commissioning of the vital McKeon review, which had a road map to build on our world-class medical research capacity and steer it towards commercialisation. This matter has been briefly touched upon by government speakers but is an area where we have massively underachieved as a nation, where we have not done justice to the great basic research work that has been done through enabling it to be exploited to the benefit of the Australian community. This is a challenge where it is critical that we do more than simply speak hollow words about the enabling role of government. We need to think clearly about what that role should be.

Ten minutes from the newly-minted assistant minister, and he had nothing to say—perhaps the hackathon will solve this problem. But it was not a contest of ideas, because the government offered just one: that government should do less. Government has been doing less under this government, and it is not looking very pretty. We have seen Enterprise Connect, a fantastic support for more than 30,000 businesses, ripped apart. We have seen Commercialisation Australia, which was doing good work in expanding the commercialisation of great Australian ideas, fall apart. It is important to acknowledge the new responsibilities, of innovation and start-ups, of the shadow parliamentary secretary, the member for Chifley. Though they are new formal responsibilities, the member for Chifley has been leading this debate and leading a high-level engagement with the start-up community in our universities for quite some time. He offers a template that government members should be following.

The Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech sets out a road map that could be a bipartisan road map to a bold innovation future. The start-up year is one idea. The investments in higher education, providing certainty to enable the sort of research that we need to secure an innovation future, is something that is at the core of this government's failings and at the core of the failings of the now minister for innovation, the former failed minister for education. We see the agenda to boost STEM and support coding. We see in Labor's plan a real vision to underpin an innovation future, and on the other hand we see a failure to invest, and a vision of government that is almost non-existent. We are seeing the critical impact of cuts to CSIRO and the effective dismantling of the cooperative research centre network. A new minister and a new Prime Minister with new rhetoric cannot match the reality.

As the member for Greenway said in leading off the debate, we have a government here which is long on ambition but short on commitment. We have a government that is shirking the productivity challenge that Australia faces because its only answer is to resort to ideology—the ideology of a government withdrawing from economic activity and the ideology that says the answer to every problem is to depress wages, not to invest in people or in their ideas. (Time expired)

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Productivity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to be addressing the chamber on this particular matter of public importance. I note it is about Australia's economic growth and productivity and I note it was tabled by the member for Greenway, who happens to not be here—she is obviously not so interested in the topic after she has had what she—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Oh—it is the brains trust from the CFMEU! We will get something from you, mate. I am very happy as the new Assistant Minister for Productivity to be discussing Australia's economic growth and productivity. The government has a whole range of issues on the agenda that we are implementing. I will go through them in the course of the next five minutes. They go to the free trade agreements that we are implementing in this country; they go to the small business policies that we are implementing; they go to the NBN rollout that we are implementing; they go to the innovation agenda that the new Assistant Minister for Innovation and the Assistant Minister for Science are working on.

Productivity is very, very important for a country. What is productivity? Some people think that it is just an economist's term. There is a whole bunch of schoolkids in the gallery. It is not just an economist's term, it is what it is, in a sense, a common-sense interpretation of the word. Productivity is about taking the things you have got—the labour, the capital, the IT equipment, the computers or whatever it is—and using them as efficiently as possible. To be productive and to increase productivity is a good thing, whatever you are doing—whether you are producing goods and services in the private sector or you are concentrating on the public provision of health services or education services. Productivity is vital to the Australian economy.

Recently, the Productivity Commission put out its most recent productivity update and that is dated July 2015, so it is hot off the press. The recent record in terms of productivity in Australia has not been so good, and that is why it is an issue for debate in Australia. During the period of the last government—the last Labor government from 2007 up to 2013—unfortunately, productivity in Australia went backwards. It declined—minus 0.1 per cent. It is not good.

This government are attempting to get productivity as strong as possible and to get it back to where it is in the long-term trend for Australia—that is, a productivity growth of 0.8 per cent. These are not very big numbers but they are very, very significant numbers—if you can get up to a growth rate of around 0.8 per cent or one per cent as an annual rate. At the moment, it is 0.4 per cent. In the period we have been in government, we have got it up to 0.4 per cent. So we have done very well compared to the previous six years, when it was simply minus 0.1 per cent.

What are we doing to do that, to ensure that that is happening? I will get to the trade agreements, for example. The fact is that we are also doing reviews of taxation, we are doing reviews of workplace relations, we are doing reviews of competition policy and the financial systems inquiry is there. These are all very, very big areas of sectors of the economy. We are looking at what we can do to make sure that we can produce the goods in the most efficient way and strengthen the economy, strengthen the revenue base of governments in Australia and, therefore, provide the social welfare net, the education services, the scientific research by the CSIRO—which is at record levels, I understand, from the Assistant Minister for Science—and other education provision in this country.

The big things that have happened recently are the three free trade agreements. We have one going with Japan. We have one going with Korea. We hope that, by the end of this year, we will have one going with China. I really appreciate the outbreak in bipartisanship that might be happening with regard to China. That will be a big, big benefit to the country. Now, we have the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which is another great, great deal that we have been able to negotiate, and I hope it can be introduced in the near future.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am excited by the MPI topic. I have the feeling of optimism. I was even more excited when I saw the three gentlemen on the frontbench over there—the three amigos of the leadership apocalypse: the members for Eden-Monaro, Longman and Mitchell, who sit on the frontbench as reward for their loyal support for the member of Warringah! They have been rewarded by their roles, and I am really happy for them. I am really happy to be debating them. Unfortunately, the member for Longman's first outing as the assistant minister was a pretty desperate attempt. We had 10 minutes of 'feelpinions'. We had 10 minutes of 'feelpinions' like, 'Why we can't we love each other.'

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Never mind those nasty, inconvenient facts. Never mind those awful facts that get in the way of your case, because the truth is that you have been dreadful at supporting industry and innovation policy for the last two years. We had the great, gold nugget that government must enable people by leaving them alone—government must enable by not helping. You do not enable by exiting. I have been involved in industry and innovation policy for 15 years. I have sat on many innovation councils, and I have not met a single small business or entrepreneur who has not asked for government assistance—not a single one who has not asked for government assistance and who has not had an idea about how government can support them to grow their business to employ more Australians to sell more products. This concept of enabling by exiting, quite frankly, is moronic. It is simply moronic and is ideology without any factual basis.

The one thing I agreed with the member for Longman about—I am actually going to be nice to the member for Longman for two seconds

Opposition members interjecting—

Steady on, I know! It is going to feel strange for a minute! The one thing I agree with him on is that we need to be better at applied research. This country is great at blue sky research, but we need to improve applied research. Our dividend for every dollar we spend on applied research is not great. We do not do it by cutting $2 billion of industry and innovation programs. You do not do it by cutting $500 million that was a precincts program that was specifically designed in response to industry requests to turn research and industry towards each other—$500 million gone because of the philistines over the other side. You do not cut $300 million in venture capital assistance through the IIF's that the last Labor government put in place—gone because those on the other side say that you need venture capital but the government will not provide a role.

I will let the member for Longman into a little secret—Israel is a great paragon of applied research, but you really need to acknowledge the huge role that Israeli government, through the Israeli defence force, has played in supporting those small businesses. It is a complete furphy to say that the Israeli private sector does it by themselves. Again, if you look at innovations from US Silicon Valley, they are all products of the huge US government investment in things such as the defence industry. You need to have a bit of history in this area—a bit of knowledge and a bit of experience—and sadly the member for Longman is lacking.

You just have to look at the contribution from their senior people—their deep commitment to these areas! I went back and looked through Hansard to look at what the new Prime Minister's contribution was on, say, jobs in his 11 years in parliament. The new Prime Minister—when you exclude his speeches about people having done a good job—has mentioned jobs in parliament 18 times. He has mentioned jobs 18 times in his 11 year parliamentary career. He has mentioned innovation 16 times. You can look it up yourselves. By contrast, he has mentioned arrogance and pride 25 times—so he has some self-awareness! He has mentioned rugby, sailing and cafes 18 times, as well—very important things! I would submit that jobs and innovation are slightly more important to talk about than rugby, sailing and cafes, but that this the level of devotion from the new Prime Minister. The new Minister for Industry and Innovation has mentioned innovation 23 times in his 22-year parliamentary career. By contrast, he has mentioned wine and Amanda Vanstone 23 times. He has mentioned 'fixing' 47 times, which is great. And he has mentioned Kathy Jackson and the HSU 20 times. They are the priorities of the new Minister for Industry and Innovation. That is the sad pity of this entire debate. All we get on their side is empty rhetoric, while they cut billions and billions of dollars away from support for innovation, and that is a huge pity. I am keen to hear from the third amigo.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say it is not the audacity of hope over there, is it? There are not many budding Barack Obamas sitting on that bench—not many ideas, not much innovation and not much hope that we can see coming from the opposition benches. There are a few—as we heard just now—budding Roger Corbyns over there, because the member for Charlton says: 'Everyone I meet asks me for money. Everyone I have ever met on any government body I have ever sat on has asked me for a buck.' You know, Member for Charlton, you can say no to people who ask you for a dollar. In fact, coming from the Australian Labor Party, you should say no more often, Member for Charlton. You should say no when people ask you for money.

It is the case that the Turnbull government is interested in innovation and science. Indeed, we are spending a lot more money on science now that we have exited the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, when—of course they may not know it over there—something in the order of $82.9 million was cut from the CSIRO between the years 2011-12 and 2016-17. This was on top of the cuts of $63.4 million in 2008. Some people in the gallery, some people listening to this debate and some of my colleagues on the government benches are wondering: is this possibly the lamest MPI that we have ever had in the history of this parliament? I have to say that it is very much the case that it might be. But, if we are talking about the CSIRO, I want to say that the former Labor government, which the member for Greenway was in, cut money from the CSIRO. In terms of innovation, Kim Carr, who is still in the science and research innovation portfolio, admitted something about those cuts that was very innovative. He is a very innovative fellow, the shadow minister for innovation, because he admitted that the cuts to science, the cuts to the CSIRO, made by the previous Labor government had to be taken and had to be tough, 'because we are fighting a war on inflation'. You might think that inflation is about the monetary supply. Thousands of years of economic theory might tell you that inflation has certain factors that contribute to it, but this shadow minister for innovation thinks that science funding creates inflation within Australia and that the way to fight the war on inflation is to cut science funding.

So not only do we have an MPI that is one of the lamest we have ever had in this parliament's history; we also have a complete misnomer in that the previous government cut funding. This matter is so unimportant we had the shadow minister leave us for most of the debate. He was not even listening to the debate. But I know that many of us here would think that there were some arguments that would come across—ideas. We heard a lot of talk about ides. But I listened carefully to the contributions from the members for Charlton, Scullin, Greenway and Chifley, in all of their longwindedness, and I tried to write down the key arguments and the key ideas they were putting in favour of this debate. The best thing I came up with after 20 or 30 minutes of debate was a phrase that I put on this piece of people in my notebook, 'this page intentionally left blank', because really we heard nothing about what this MPI is about.

I have a piece of advice for the member for Greenway: this is called a matter of public importance because it is supposed to be important. It is supposed to be about something important. It is supposed to be so important that you stay in the chamber and listen to the debate, member for Greenway, and you do not leave for three-quarters of the debate. It is supposed to be so important that the member for Scullin prepares his remarks in advance and delivers them with some sort of enthusiasm. It is supposed to be so important that you send in somebody more important than the member for Charlton to talk about it. If this matter is so important, let us have some debate about ideas, let us have some debate about policy and let us have some real argument about something.

As the Assistant Minister for Innovation said, the new paradigm is here. We are talking about ideas and innovation. There is more funding for science. There is more funding for STEM. We are talking about innovation and start-ups and a new culture in this country, where every economic policy is directed towards economic growth, towards growth in start-ups and towards the government of the 21st century.

All I would say to the Australian parliament is: please innovate in your own ranks and come up with a better MPI so we can have a reasonable debate in the Australian parliament, because the Australian people want us focused on the economic settings that will allow for start-ups to grow and start up their own businesses without the government's involvement, not by opening the government's chequebook, and not by going around to see the member for Charlton and saying 'Can I have more money,' and having him say yes. He always says yes, because he does not know how to say no when someone asks him for government money. This matter of public importance is unimportant. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the past months, we have seen opposite something of a corporate hostile takeover. I use the term advisedly. In the sector that I have spent the majority of my career working in, the ICT and technology sector, we have a bit of a passion for disruption and for innovations that do things in a different way, turn the show upside down and make things happen in a completely new way. That is not what has happened across from us over the previous months. What we have seen is a takeover where new faces are sitting on top of an established organisation. It is a reorg, and the marketing division has been sacked. We have seen a new salesman appointed, but unfortunately for the Australian innovation system the products division has remained untouched. The R&D remains cobwebbed from neglect.

As the member for Scullin noted, we are at one in this place in the importance of innovation, but it pains us to see the lack of interest from those opposite, because fundamentally innovation underpins productivity growth in this country, but innovation can be fetishised in this building. Frankly, it is something that is talked about by far more people in this building than actually understand it. At its most basic level, innovation is about doing things that we are already doing more efficiently or doing completely new things. Start-ups are an important part of the innovation ecosystem, but the Australian innovation system is much broader. It relies on every Australian worker having the skills that they need to identify opportunities to do things differently. It relies on every small business being staffed by employees who have the ability to spot opportunities for doing things in a new way. That is why it is so disappointing to see the lack of action from the Turnbull-Abbott-Turnbull coalition on ensuring that these skills are being spread throughout the Australian economy.

Some of the most important skills that we need to teach all Australians at the moment is the set of skills that is referred to in the ICT sector as computational thinking. Computational thinking is a concept that was championed by a Microsoft executive some years ago. It is not a radical concept. It is something that the conservative Prime Minister in the UK, David Cameron, has mandated that kids learn from their first year of schooling in the United Kingdom. It is something that the Estonian government mandates at all levels of schooling in Estonia. But it is something that is completely absent, regrettably, from the Australian curriculum and the Australian education system. The way to understand the importance of computational thinking is that it is not, as the former troglodyte Prime Minister described it, teaching nine-year-olds how to code. We do not want nine-year-old's writing Python scripts. We do want all Australian kids, from primary school through to high school, students at university and new workers in the workplace understanding the basic literacies of the new digital era that we live in. We need our Australian workforce to not only understand how to use technology but to understand the way it works at a fundamental enough level for them to use it for problem-solving and for the purposes of innovation. They need to understand skills like algorithmic thinking, informatics, data analysis and statistical inference—skills that are not prioritised in our education sector at the moment.

The way to think about this metaphorically is that it is the difference between being able to ride a tricycle and a bicycle. At the moment, Australians are fantastic at riding tricycles. Australian workers can pick up a new piece of technology and work out how to use it very quickly. Unfortunately, we are not investing in teaching them the additional skills of learning how to ride a bike, learning the new skills that will enable them to get to new places and use technologies to solve problems and change the way that they do things. Unfortunately, not only has this skill been neglected by those opposite but we are going in the wrong direction. The new minister for innovation, 'the fixer', in his previous role as the Minister for Education, presided over a review of the Australian curriculum that recommended the removal of the teaching of digital technology skills from the Australian curriculum. The little that we are doing at the moment is apparently too much for those opposite. The corporate hostile takeover could not tolerate a bit of disruption.

Thankfully, Labor understands the importance of this. In our last budget-in-reply, we committed to ensuring that computational thinking will be taught in all primary schools and schools across the country. We committed to upskilling 25,000 primary and secondary school teachers in STEM skills so that they can teach those skills. We offered 25,000 scholarships to STEM university graduates to help them continue their studies and become STEM teachers, pushing these important innovative skills throughout the Australian economy and throughout the small businesses that we rely on for this innovation, including the workers that will do this innovation. We have committed to reversing the 20 per cent cuts to university funding made by those opposite, creating a smart investment fund and developing smart financing initiatives. In the tech sector, you say, 'Disrupt or be disrupted.' This government will be disrupted. (Time expired)

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As this debate comes to its conclusion, I get the job of summing up. The positive about that is that we have no more contributions from those opposite that we have to sit through, which is very fortunate. The Assistant Minister for Science was right. We are investing $9.7 billion in science, research and innovation in the 2015-16 budget. That is $9,700 million. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers' money. We are providing record funding to the CSIRO over four years—$3.1 billion—and it is going up every year; it is not going down. That is a very simple economic fact. It is increasing. We are putting money into things like the $395 million Entrepreneurs' Program. There are things within the department of industry. We are helping local businesses to employ more people and expand.

We can look at what those on the other side of the House did when they were in government. We are fairly certain of that. When in government, they cut $82.9 million from the CSIRO in 2011-12 to 2016-17. They did not put it up; they cut $82.9 million from the CSIRO. There is not only that. In 2008, they took out another $63.4 million. That is a substantial amount of money and yet they are here telling us that our increases are not good enough. What did the CSIRO say about that? The CEO at that time said:

We are seriously disappointed, but that is their call and we disagree with it.

As they say, that is an understatement. What else did they cut? They cut $40.5 million from the Cooperative Research Centres in the 2011-12 budget, and what happened as a result? Three agricultural CRCs were abolished—gone. We hear a lot about these people with country Labor and the wonderful thing with a hashtag in front of it.

I am very pleased that the shadow minister for agriculture is here, because the people in the bush know exactly what happens when Labor are in government. They destroy the bush; they cut things like the agricultural CRC; they closed the live cattle trade overnight; and they cut thousands of jobs for people who are truck drivers, people who are musterers and people who provide services. Within 24 hours—overnight—and no notice, they shut them down and cost this country and the people who live in the bush millions of dollars. It is absolutely shameful.

There was the contribution from the member for Greenway. She talked about a big game and this side of the parliament being all talk. On this side, the things that we have include vision. We have vision, we know how to plan, we know how to implement and we know how to build structures that help business. It is not government that employs. Regardless of how much money we might have, the government cannot employ every Australian. It simply will not work. You need to have structures for them to be successful and you need to take action. We need to get it done. I will talk about that very soon—exactly what we are doing on the ground, in my seat, in the electorate of Hinkler.

On the other side, what do they have? They have a giant stack of drink coasters. Every now and again, they might come up with an idea and they will write it down with a pen and then spend thousands or billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The member for Chifley asked rightly: what innovation do we have in Hinkler? I am quite happy to answer the member for Chifley. We have any number of people who have been incredibly innovative. We can look at Sweet Sensations Farm and Mr Craig Van Rooyen. He is using drone technology as a nonlethal method to combat flying foxes. Flying foxes and drones, would you believe, in Bundaberg, in my seat. Run4 owner, Dr Henry Thomas, has built a biotic runner to try to help people who possibly cannot run because of the impacts of running on the road. We have Bundaberg Walkers Engineering—someone who has been there for 125 years—innovating in not only the sugar industry but heavy manufacturing. They are a foundry. They perform activities all over the world. They are using 3-D spatial technology right now to map overseas infrastructure to try to make them more competitive with international companies.

Jack Milbank, a 2006 Nuffield scholar, with a Bachelor of Applied Science, is the CEO of three Bundaberg based businesses, including the Bargara Brewing Company. This is a gentleman who had been importing yeast from overseas and decided he did not want to import from overseas any more. 'How do I get yeast? Well, I brew beer.' At the recent science forum he really encouraged lots of students to take up STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—because STEM leads to beer. That was his line: STEM leads to beer! What a fantastic innovation for my electorate. Bargara Brewing Company, right there in Bundaberg, making their own product. This is the sort of thing we need.

Best Practice Software—Lorraine Pyefinch—is one of the largest providers in the country of software for medical people, for GPs, and it is based out of Bundaberg. So we have things on the ground. We are taking action and we are getting it done.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has concluded.