Senate debates
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Questions without Notice
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
2:25 pm
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Just a minute; resume your seat. Senator Barnett, you get up to ask a question and it is your own side that interject on you.
Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Does the minister agree that Labor’s efficiency dividend applied to the CSIRO this year is arbitrary and unfair?
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You just say ‘Yes’.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The position of the government—
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I raise a point of order. Can I request that the Hansard records Senator Faulkner’s answer, ‘Just say “Yes.”’
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. Senator Faulkner, do you have a point of order?
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is always risky—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Resume your seat. You are entitled to take a point of order, but those on your side, Senator Faulkner, need to be quiet. You are entitled to be heard.
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr President. It is always risky when—
Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What’s the point of order?
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am speaking to Senator Macdonald’s point of order. On the point of order—
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Well, I am taking a further point of order, if that’s the case.
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Abetz interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Abetz, I will run the chamber, thank you. Senator Faulkner, you have got the call on your point of order.
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is always risky when—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Resume your seat, Senator Faulkner. Resume your seat, Senator Joyce—I am taking a point of order from Senator Faulkner.
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Joyce interjecting—
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You will have to wait for your turn.
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is my point of order: it is always risky when a senator tries to take advantage of half a comment they hear in the chamber.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What’s your standing order?
John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And, Mr President, I would have thought that Senator Macdonald, given some of the comments he makes in the chamber, should know better. But, out of respect for the chamber, I will not be outlining my complete comment to the chamber because it might very much embarrass Senator Macdonald and one or two of his colleagues.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order, Senator Faulkner. I call the minister, who has one minute 55 seconds to complete his answer to the question.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the senator. Part of the government’s election commitments was to require an additional, one-off further efficiency dividend of two per cent, from all agencies—not just the CSIRO. In going through a series of savings exercises in the budget, we also made decisions to effectively apply these dividends, as I indicated, to a range of agencies. The CSIRO performs a vital function within the Commonwealth. It is our leading scientific agency within the Commonwealth. We have, of course, ensured that the CSIRO’s appropriation has actually increased.
What we see of course is that the balance of the CSIRO’s funding arrangements provides a new opportunity as a result of new budgetary decisions that were also taken in the context of the last budget. For instance, on Labor’s clean-energy election commitment, we have delivered $25 million for CSIRO’s work on clean-coal technologies and CSIRO is likely to have access to additional funding from the Australian Solar Institute.
The opposition may well seek to present these issues in a partisan manner, and they may seek to misrepresent the situation, but the priorities given to the flagships—and of course through the science investment process—has ensured that the impact of the efficiency dividends on the flagship program has actually been minimal. Since the launch of the flagship program in April 2003 nearly 100 patents have been lodged, nearly 400 formal agreements with industry and research partners have been put in place and nearly 350 of those agreements are still running. Research and scientific reports to clients and publications of the flagships— (Time expired)
Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would first like to quote from the report of the Labor dominated Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the efficiency dividend, which was released today. The report said that the efficiency dividend represented:
… a significant additional burden on the organisation, one that resulted in the closure of regional facilities. The Committee would hope that such seemingly arbitrary and unfair decisions will not be imposed in the future. Furthermore, should any further ‘one-off’ efficiency dividend or an increase to the existing 1.25% efficiency dividend be imposed in the next financial year, the Committee believes that the CSIRO warrants special consideration.
Will the government be accepting this recommendation?
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In regard to the committee report that has been referred to, which I understand was tabled today, I frankly have not had an opportunity to read the report. We will examine the report and we will study it carefully because the efficiency dividend has been developed as an integral part of a devolved financial management framework where agencies are in fact provided with the flexibility and the autonomy to spend the funds appropriately directed to them by parliament. The actions of the CSIRO in responding to the decisions of government have been to maintain the scientific integrity of the CSIRO and to demonstrate its leading role—
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise on a point of order on the issue of direct relevance. The minister has clearly indicated to us that he has not had the opportunity to read the committee’s report. The question asked was whether or not he would adopt the committee’s recommendation. If he has not read it, he clearly is not in a position to advise whether or not it is going to be adopted. As a result, he should take the question on notice and sit down and not just prattle on from a brief that bears no relevance to the question that was asked.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, we have had a quite extraordinary proposition being put now on a number of occasions during this question time trial where those opposite have stood up and said, ‘The answer has to be yes or no; make them answer yes or no.’ This is clearly and patently a ridiculous interpretation that the opposition are trying to badger the chair into adopting. Senator Carr is clearly relevant to the question. He has been referring to the report and to the discussions arising from the report. It is absolutely on message and relevant and this should be dismissed along with the rest of the spurious points of order that they have raised in the last two weeks.
John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The minister has 20 seconds remaining to answer the question and I draw the minister’s attention to the question.
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government welcomes the committee’s report and we will consider its recommendations carefully, as we do with all Senate reports. I thank the senator for his question.
Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I quote further from the report:
The Committee appreciates that the scientific and technical agencies that provided submissions to the inquiry are suffering from the impost of the ongoing, and the recently imposed ‘one-off’, efficiency dividend.
So doesn’t this report from the Labor dominated committee prove that this efficiency dividend has significantly damaged the capacity of Australia’s research and development organisations?
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I indicate to the Senate that it was a report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in which senators participated. The government, as I have indicated, welcomes the report. We will consider its recommendations very carefully. However, the government takes the view that it is confident that all of our agencies will be able to deliver the outcomes that we require within the financial constraints the government considers are necessary and appropriate. I remain absolutely confident that the CSIRO can manage its budget effectively and continue to produce very high-quality research to keep it as a leading agency within this country.