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

I understand that the convention in recent times is that ministerial statements be tabled, and I have also been advised that, due to the pressure of business, it would be beneficial to the running of the Senate that these statements be tabled. I therefore table a ministerial statement on the Australian economy and global conditions and a statement by me on the Australian Laureate Fellowships scheme and the new Chief Executive Officer of CSIRO.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which statement, Senator Abetz?

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

As I understood it, there was one relating to Minister Carr, and that was his statement on the Australian Laureate Fellowships scheme and the new chief executive of CSIRO. The statement, like everything else emanating from this government, is all about spin and not substance. A statement about the Australian Laureate Fellowships scheme and the appointment of a new chief executive of CSIRO has been demeaned and sullied by this particular minister’s inability to desist from cheap partisan statements. The appointment of Dr Megan Clark, we assume, is a good, proper—

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Meritorious.

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

meritorious, worthy appointment. It should not have been cocooned in a highly political statement where the minister gratuitously attacks the alternative government. At the fourth sentence into the statement, he already makes highly politically charged statements, and then that theme continues right through until the very second-last sentence in his statement. So the minister bookends this important statement with cheap political comments throughout.

The statement tells us that the government is working on many fronts to improve Australia’s innovation capacity but, of course, it does not tell us that ANSTO has been cut by $12 million, that the CSIRO has been cut by $63 million and that the abolition of the Commercial Ready program will strip $1.4 billion worth out of the innovation sector. We are told in this statement that, after neglect et cetera, we urgently need to lift our game. So I ask rhetorically: how did Labor lift its game in this area? Well, it has reduced total outlays on research and development from 2.63 per cent of the budget to 2.56 per cent, the lowest in four years and the second lowest for the decade. He then moves on to tell us that we have to ensure that we get the best returns from our own great innovation assets. One of those assets is the CSIRO, the minister tells us, yet he sees fit to strip $63 million out of the CSIRO, a stripping which as we speak is causing forced redundancies, the closure of centres and the sale of CSIRO assets around the country. But he has the audacity to pretend that the CSIRO, in the face of these massive cuts, is evolving.

You see, Mr Deputy President, when it comes to innovation, science and research the Labor Party are great on spin, but when you analyse the substance it does not match the spin. The minister said before the last election, in relation to innovation, that he would streamline the Commercial Ready program. Did he streamline it! There is now no paperwork whatsoever associated with that scheme, because he abolished it. $1.4 billion was stripped out of the innovation sector of this nation, and yet he has the audacity to say that innovation is at the heart of this new government. He started off his statement by saying, ‘The government is working on many fronts to improve Australia’s innovation capacity’—when he stripped $1.4 billion out of the innovation system. So, as with everything of this minister and this government, do not look at the spin; look at the actual substance. Look at what they have actually done.

In this statement the minister announced the appointment of Dr Megan Clark as the new CEO of CSIRO. I congratulate her on that appointment, look forward to interactions with her at Senate estimates and elsewhere and wish her well in that job. It is regrettable that, with all the politics that the minister plays, he could not even bring himself to say thank you to the outgoing CEO of CSIRO, Dr Geoff Garrett—a man who won a Centenary Medal for his contribution to science. One would have thought that a minister—instead of playing politics with this sort of a statement, instead of trying to bash up the alternative government—would have said: ‘What are the important things to get across here? CSIRO is an important institution in this country. It has been served exceptionally well by Dr Geoff Garrett for about seven years. He is to be thanked for his service to the Australian people. He is to be congratulated for what he has done—might I add in very difficult circumstances.’ But no, there was no word of thanks to Dr Geoff Garrett, only commentary about the appointment of Dr Clark—commentary which, of course, is well deserved, is proper, and I wish her and the CSIRO every success for the future. But the inability to say thank you to Dr Geoff Garrett in that statement is unfortunately a reflection of the way that this particular minister does his business.

Innovation, science and research are vital areas for this nation’s future. They are vital because without them our country will go backwards. We cannot afford to stand still, but this country is now not even standing still; we are going backwards. The figures clearly show that we are lagging in relation to budgetary allocations. ANSTO—the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—has had $12 million ripped out of it because of this minister’s attitude to anything that has the word ‘nuclear’ in it. A very immature, extreme, left-wing political agenda has driven the cuts to something which is at the forefront of medical technology in this country. It is being cut, and cut heavily. Senator Carr championed the CSIRO to anybody who would listen for the two years before the last election—he was going to revitalise the CSIRO. Of course, according to Labor you revitalise the CSIRO by ripping $63 million out of it and forcing redundancies—a great way to revitalise! Then he says he is going to streamline Commercial Ready. Everybody thought, ‘A great scheme, a fantastic scheme, and something will be done to make it even better.’ Instead, without warning, he callously chopped it.

How does that help Australian innovation? I can tell you it does not. Literally hundreds of people have contacted me indicating that they are now going to take their investments overseas. One of the other things the minister does not understand is that the Commercial Ready program allowed collaboration between inventors, venture capitalists and some of our great institutions. I have heard a whisper that the CSIRO could have easily expected about $10 million to flow to it on an annual basis through the Commercial Ready program, before it was abolished. So no longer do we have this $63 million cut; chances are that over the forward estimates it may become more like a $100 million cut. Yet the minister says: ‘I’m the champion of innovation. I am the one to streamline Commercial Ready. I am the one to revitalise the CSIRO. I am the one to revitalise ANSTO.’ Everything he has done in his portfolio is the exact opposite. To hide that fact, he cannot help but become deliberately political in his ministerial statements. Can I suggest that, rather than attacking us in the future in his ministerial statements, he ought to concentrate on his portfolio and also think about doing the decent thing, like giving a vote of thanks to the outgoing CEO of the CSIRO, Dr Geoff Garrett. He deserved to be treated a lot better. (Time expired)

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

I would like to speak to the motion before the chair. Senator Abetz, the convention is that when you table a statement, you would expect to have a tabled reply. Since you have chosen not to do that, I am of course obliged to respond to your remarks. Let me deal firstly with your slur with regard to the attitude towards Dr Garrett. If you had actually participated in any of the events yesterday, if you had followed any of the developments yesterday, you would have known that there was a full and fulsome congratulation to Dr Garrett, in public, at the Discovery Centre. Your slur with regard to that matter is misplaced because it is once again factually wrong. I should get used to your slurs and I should get used to the fact that you are factually wrong, because that seems to be the common pattern—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will address the chair, Senator Carr.

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

Mr Deputy President, I should get used to the way in which Senator Abetz does this, because his whole style is not to examine the issues but to attack individuals in such a way as to personalise his politics. In fact, his whole approach to politics is essentially to play the person rather than the issue.

The proposition we have before us today is a ministerial statement which draws attention to the fact that there is a serious problem facing this country—that is, while the bar has been rising with regard to our national innovation effort, our performance has been falling. I argue in this ministerial statement that we do not have the innovation capacity to stay productive and competitive if the positions that were maintained under the previous government were allowed to continue. We do not have the innovation capacity to maintain living standards in a cut-throat global economy in a low-carbon world. Therefore there is a need to fundamentally reassess the approach that this country takes to the national innovation system. That is exactly what we have done with the review of the national innovation system. I look forward to Senator Abetz’s response to that.

That is fundamentally what we have done with regard to the Australian automotive industry. I look forward to Senator Abetz’s response to the Bracks review, because we have not heard any detailed assessment of that review. I have not heard anything from Senator Abetz on the review of the CRC program, and I look forward to his assessment with regard to the clothing and textile review.

What occurred under the Howard government was that public funding for tertiary education actually declined. We were one of only three countries in the OECD that saw a reduction in support for business R&D. The cuts that were made under the previous government to business R&D were the deepest in the OECD. Commonwealth spending on science and innovation actually fell by 27 per cent, as a share of GDP, from its peak under the Keating government through to the period of the current financial year. The shadow minister says that the current government’s budgetary arrangements are such that they produce a lower figure. The truth of the matter is that we brought down a budget only a few months ago. The OECD statistics are based on the full effect in any financial year, so you need to look at the history of these things in the context of what the previous government actually did.

Of course, we saw the growth in research degree commitments collapse. We saw collaboration between industry and universities go backwards. We saw Commonwealth spending on science and innovation, as a share of GDP, fall by 27 per cent. In that context, I was absolutely delighted that Dr Megan Clark took up the position of CEO of the CSIRO. She is probably the most prominent and most senior private sector technologist that this country has. I can only guess at the sorts of salaries that she may well have been offered working for BHP, but she has chosen to work for the Commonwealth. I applaud her public spirit and the fact that we are able to attract a person of her calibre and that, in the circumstances that this country now faces, she is able to commit herself to such public services. That is why I say it is such a fantastic appointment.

Dr Clark is the sort of person who will inspire women all over this country. The truth of the matter is that, when we look at our performance with regard to engagement of women in the sciences and in mathematics, our position is woeful—just woeful! Dr Clark, I hope, will be a model to young women scientists right across the nation. It is my hope that her example will inspire more women to stick with the sciences and build careers in research to boost the innovative effort of this country as a whole. In this country we have seen an appalling situation with regard to women staying on in maths and science. Despite the fact that females are the predominant candidates for positions in primary and junior high schools, in senior high schools and universities the situation is reversed.

What we have also said in this ministerial statement is that despite the fact that our performance by world standards is slipping we need to take action to attract young Australian scholars. We have proposed, through this announcement, that a new Australian Laureate Fellowships scheme be introduced. It is a scheme that is worth some $239 million over the next five years. It will give top international researchers a reason to come here and to stay here if they happen to be Australian. Each research laureate will be able to act as a mentor for research teams of up to four postdoctoral and postgraduate researchers, passing on their skills and knowledge to the next generation.

We need this sort of thing because of the ageing of our research workforce in this country. That is the sort of action that this government is taking to address the shortfall in our capacity. We need to do a lot more. The ratio of PhD completions to undergraduate degree completions in the natural and physical sciences is one to nine for males, and only one to 13 for females. That is the sort of thing we need to address. We need to address the ageing of our workforce and we need to ensure that we are able to rebuild our research infrastructure, but we will not do that unless we can attract quality candidates such as Dr Megan Clark to senior positions in science. That is the point we are making: that the appointment of candidates like Dr Clark to positions like this and things such as the Australian laureates will provide the stimulus to attract high-quality people to the Australian research sector.

Senator Abetz, I suggest you spend a bit more time on the issues and a lot less time on the personalities, and you will probably be a much better shadow minister as a result.

Question agreed to.