Senate debates
Monday, 14 July 2014
Motions
Future Fellowships Scheme
3:44 pm
David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) that research and development is critical for Australia's prosperity, economic growth and social wellbeing,
(ii) that investment in, and application of, research and development can lift productivity in Australia, and
(iii) the need for continued research and development to meet the goal of increasing Australia's productivity, economic growth and employment in the 21st Century; and
(b) congratulates the Government for providing $139.5 million over 4 years to continue the Future Fellowships scheme for outstanding mid-career Australian researchers to:
(i) enable Australian researchers to conduct their research in Australia,
(ii) attract and retain the best Australian mid-career researchers, and
(iii) support research into areas of crucial national importance.
Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
The motion that Senator Bushby has put forward on behalf Senator McKenzie suggests that there has been quite a bit missed during the past three months, in particular the budget. Senator McKenzie, in her motion, wants to give the government a pat on the back for continuing Future Fellowships, a program to help midcareer researchers that Labor set up when we were in office, but she ignores the devastation that the government has wreaked on Australia's total R&D capacity by its budget cuts: a massive $5.8 billion ripped from the higher education sector and more than $2.5 billion gone from the industry department, including $845 million allocated to innovation programs that the government has axed. The $139.5 million for the Future Fellowships over four years scarcely compensates for the damage the budget has done to Australia's R&D potential. To pass this motion—and we will be opposing it—would be like applauding vandals who have trashed a public building for building a facade that conceals the damage they have done.
Question negatived.