Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Carr, both in his own right as Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and also representing the Minister for Trade, Mr Crean. I wonder if the minister could tell the Senate by what percentage investment in Australia’s biotechnology sector has collapsed since the government axed the vital Commercial Ready program, thereby breaking another one of its election promises—this one to revitalise Australia’s innovation system?

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

The question that the senator asked me in relation to biotechnology is an important one. The portfolio that I administer spends some $390 million a year on research and industry support for biotechnology alone. This expenditure on biotechnology varies from year to year, as much of it is provided through investigator driven programs or the National Competitive Grants Program. I would expect that support provided through the CSIRO, the Australian Research Council, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and programs under AusIndustry like the Innovation Investment Fund would also continue to provide a broadly equivalent level of support. The new Climate Ready Program of $75 million over four years can provide support for biotechnology projects as well. They contribute to tackling climate change and the environmental challenges that are facing Australia.

Recent media coverage indicates that local investors are shying away from high-risk technology start-up companies in response to the global financial instability. There is an indication that the focus of the biotechnology and other high-tech sectors may shift away from fundraising activities and turn instead to licensing in technology. So the government is considering the recommendations of the report of the Review of the National Innovation System and is now developing a white paper outlining a 10-year plan for promoting innovation across the country. The changes proposed by the national innovation review to introduce tax credits and extend the Innovation Investment Fund should be also welcomed by the innovation sector in that regard. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he accepts that the shying off of investment which he referred to in his answer is because the Commercial Ready program was axed by his government? I am pleased that the minister mentioned Dr Terry Cutler’s Review of the National Innovation System. I ask the minister to guarantee that he will implement the recommendation of Dr Cutler to institute a new competitive grants program for innovative businesses to replace the axed Commercial Ready program.

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

The proposed competitive innovation grants program, recommended by Dr Cutler and his review panel, is different from the former Commercial Ready program. The panel identified a gap in assistance for innovative small and medium sized enterprises with limited access to capital in the high-risk proof of concept and development stages of projects. If such firms do not have the necessary capital to test new concepts, they would not be able to use the tax credit arrangements that are being proposed in other parts of Dr Cutler’s report, nor for that matter the existing arrangements—and, of course, they would need to spend a lot more money than they currently spend to achieve that outcome. So the associated high risk of investment means that third-party investors are very unlikely to assist such firms. The proposed competitive innovation grants program targets support to national priorities— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr has accepted that there are now two gaps in the program in his department, but the minister would be aware that the Export Market Development Grants Scheme, for which he has responsibility in this chamber, also encourages investment in innovation. Will the minister guarantee that the government will not further harm Australia’s investment in innovation by axing the Export Market Development Grants Scheme—like it did to the Commercial Ready program? Further, will the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in his major statement scheduled for this week, be responding to the Mortimer report on the EMDG Scheme, which is so vital to innovation investment?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I listened carefully to Senator Macdonald’s primary question and also to the supplementary question he has now asked. Mr President, do you consider it in order for Senator Macdonald to ask a supplementary question in relation to the EMDG, given the nature of his primary question about Commercial Ready?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, just briefly on the point of order: I am delighted to see Senator Faulkner’s clear and unadulterated interest in relevance, and that is to be welcomed. But I would point out that Senator Macdonald, in his primary question, quite clearly referred to Australia’s innovation system. That was the premise of the question and it was the premise of the supplementary question, and I therefore believe it is entirely in order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: the Export Market Development Grants Scheme relates to innovation in certain areas, and I made that clear in the supplementary. This minister is not only the minister for innovation but also represents the trade minister, and they are both intertwined and quite relevant to both the original question and the supplementary. We have now given the minister plenty of time to try and work out an answer, so I hope we will get one from him.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: under which standing order can we now have a situation where ministers can be asked a question in one portfolio and a supplementary question on an entirely separate ministerial representation? What is the relationship between the supplementary question and the primary question? What we have here is a question that went to me as the minister for innovation and then a supplementary question that went to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. It is quite clearly out of order.

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

Mr President, Senator Macdonald indicated to you at the commencement of his question that he was asking a question of Senator Carr in both his ministerial capacity and his representative capacity. You called on Senator Carr to answer the question in both his ministerial capacity and his representative capacity. In those circumstances, it is quite in order for Senator Carr to be required to at least have a stab at the question. Mr President, you clearly called him in both capacities.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: I ask you to rule on the point made by Senator Abetz. It seems to me that the proposition the opposition are now advancing—after having said that the ‘new’ question time is about homing in on relevance—is that they can in the same question ask a minister a question that goes to both their own responsibilities and responsibilities that fall to other ministers whom they may not represent. It seems to me that Senator Abetz has just advanced the proposition that one could be asked a question in one portfolio and that the supplementary question, or indeed the primary question, could be asked with both hats on. But fundamentally he has proposed that a supplementary could then be asked of a different portfolio. That is not my understanding of how we have operated over the years. Mr President, I would ask you to rule on that because it seems to me quite a departure from how we have operated in the past.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: the issue that is currently before you and which we are debating in the Senate is about whether or not it is permissible to ask a question that encompasses a minister in their portfolio capacity and also in their representative capacity. Minister Carr did not at the commencement of his answer take any point of order in relation to the relevance of the question and how he would deal with it in either capacity. The question as framed and the supplementaries are directly relevant to the capacities in which he chose to commence his answer, and he ought to be asked to complete it.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: clearly, we have now got to a position where Senator Evans has asked you to rule on the issue, and I encourage that course of action, if I may, with respect. We do have the second issue, though, which I would also ask you to look at, which relates to the relevance of the supplementary—that is, the final supplementary—to the question itself. Senator Evans has asked in relation to the issue that revolves around cross-portfolio matters, but there is also the additional matter about the relevance of the second supplementary question to the primary question, because the rules in relation to relevance have not changed with respect to supplementary questions under the new system.

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

Senator Conroy interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, I am trying to listen to the point of order being made by Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rules in relation to relevance have not changed in the new system, but in terms of the application of the new system to these circumstances I think it is worth while for the President to have a look at that issue as well.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: Senator Carr had the opportunity when he was first asked the question to object to it. You do not suddenly object to a question when you do not know the answer. He had the opportunity early on and chose not to do so.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there anyone else?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can we have silence. On the point of order: we are in a trial, as I outlined in the statement to the Senate at the start of question time. I have been pretty fair, I believe, in allowing question time to flow, and I have tried to listen very carefully to the points that have been made in the questions by all those who have asked questions today. There will be issues that arise out of the new system, which I would be very reluctant at this very early stage of the trial to make a pronouncement upon. Suffice it to say that, on the points of order that have been raised at this stage, all I will rule at this stage is that Senator Carr is obliged to answer that part of the question that applies to his portfolio. I will review the points of order that have been made today. I will review the primary questions, the secondary questions and, as a matter of fact, all questions that have been asked to check the issue of relevance and to make sure that, as we progress through this trial, there is a little bit of patience and that we iron out these chinks, if there are chinks there in the first place.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Faulkner; let me complete. Senator Carr, I am asking you to answer that part of the question which is relevant to your portfolio, and that is all I am asking at this stage.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order. My point of order, respectfully, goes to the last phase you used, Mr President, and a little earlier in your ruling. I appreciate the point you make about the trial, and that is why I raised the point of order in the spirit I did. My point of order in response to your ruling relates to Senator Carr’s representational responsibilities. I think that is a critical element, because surely the ruling that you have made would also apply to any representational responsibilities that Senator Carr has—in other words, it is not just a question of his portfolio; it is a question also of a portfolio that he is representing, which is part of—

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, if it is your point of order, Eric, I am probably wrong!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: Senator Faulkner is right. Senator Carr represents the Minister for Trade—as you called him, as a result of my opening question. The second supplementary clearly—and Hansard will show this—was relating the EMDG to innovation, which is directly Senator Carr’s responsibility. Questions were about whether Senator Carr is going to ensure that the government will not be attacking innovation by axing the EMDG as they did with the Commercial Ready program.

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

Mr President, in relation to your ruling, I would just ask that, as you have indicated, you will take away and consider a number of matters from today. Could I ask you to also ponder on your ruling that the minister is required to answer a supplementary on any parts to his portfolio. I thought the primary objective was for the supplementaries to be relevant to the primary question. Perhaps you could consider that as an issue as well in terms of the ruling that you have just given. I think it bears on the general conduct of question time.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I will be taking all matters into consideration. I believe that I will give due consideration particularly to the latter points that have been raised—even though Senator Abetz did not get to his feet—and that were raised by Senator Faulkner. I believe that, if this question time is to operate, it needs to operate in good faith, and people need to understand the terms by which it operates. I am not going to see anyone placed at a disadvantage either as the questioner or as the person who responds to a question when it is raised in this chamber. I will take a close look in particular at the issue that has been raised by Senator Macdonald as well. I have asked Senator Carr to proceed at this stage to answer that part of the question that applies to the portfolio responsibilities of Senator Carr. Senator Carr, you now have time to answer that question.

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

The government is committed to building the innovative capacity of Australia. We are taking that view in sharp contrast to the dismal and negligent attitude that the previous government took on the whole issue of innovation. As we well know, the former government’s record of performance in this area was woeful. It was absolutely woeful.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order as to relevance. The new rules state that the minister must be relevant. I ask you to bring the minister back to the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you have 34 seconds left in which to answer the question. I remind you of the issue of being relevant to the question.

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

On the question of export development, Minister Crean has made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions—in fact, from the first day this government came into office—that we have said there is a need for a new trade policy that takes our position beyond the resources boom. In a climate where we have a global economic crisis, such a view has been demonstrated to be thoroughly correct. The difference between this government and the opposition is that we do appreciate the need to diversify our trade policy, because we know that trade is about more than just producing goods and shipping goods— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.