Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Cabinet Secretary (Senator Sinodinos) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator Carr today relating to the timing of the 2016-17 Budget and to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Today the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Mr Pyne, put out a statement celebrating 100 years of the CSIRO and its predecessor. Of course, there is much to be celebrated when we talk about the CSIRO and Australia's history: its extraordinary record of success and, of course, the amazing manner in which the CSIRO has reached into the hearts and minds of Australians to the point where I think it is regarded as not just our premier publicly-funded scientific agency but one of the great national institutions of the Commonwealth. It is one of those entities that enjoys enormous public support.

So it is with some irony that, on the celebration of 100 years of the CSIRO and its predecessor organisation, we are faced with the question of: why is it that this government has cut $115 million from this great organisation, which has led to one of the biggest numbers of job losses in the agency's history? Further, this is a government that has cut $22 million from climate science programs in the Environment portfolio, which of course flows into the CSIRO. It is remarkable that we find that the international reputation of the CSIRO is under such acute examination now. Nearly 3½ thousand of the world's top climate change scientists have signed a letter highlighting their deep concern that this government's policies have led to the CSIRO reducing its climate change capacity by 50 per cent. One hundred of our leading scientists in the climate change area are to be removed. It is said that they are to be replaced by 25 scientists in the same area.

I find it ironic that, in this moment of celebration of 100 years of Australian science, we are looking at a situation where 350 jobs are now going from this great organisation, in particular in the Oceans and Atmosphere, Land and Water, and Manufacturing divisions and in Data61—that is the organisation that was forced to be created because this government withdrew funding from NICTA, our premier ICT research organisation in the country. These business units, as the government now prefers to call them, are now responding to these budget cuts and, as a consequence, we are losing the capacity for this nation to be able to speak on the international stage on matters of significance, particularly on matters around climate change. We saw Mary Robinson, former UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy on Climate Change, highlighting this point of criticism.

What has struck me in the various proceedings that I have been able to participate in is just how many incredibly experienced, world-respected scientists have come out to protest what is happening within the CSIRO. There are people there who have had 30 years experience—former heads of division, people of enormous international repute—complaining bitterly about what is going on within the CSIRO. The failure of the CSIRO executive to be able to deal satisfactorily with this criticism is truly astounding.

I am particularly concerned about the proposition that the way in which the management of the CSIRO operates is to try to communicate with one another in private, through a private email system. We know, from the evidence that has been presented, that officers down to the research director level have been instructed—instructed!—to communicate with private emails. I say this is a prima facie breach of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and the Archives Act and that the government has a responsibility to deal with breaches of the law. But it is not sufficient for us to say the CSIRO is entirely responsible for the circumstances where we are seeing such massive assaults on the capabilities of this nation, because the CSIRO is obliged to follow government budgetary policy, and this has come about as a result of these budget cuts.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak to the question re the budget, because I think it is important that we talk about budget strategy, about controlling spending and growing the economy, because that is what the coalition believe in. We have done that in all sorts of ways. We have done it through getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax and through small-business tax cuts, instant asset write-off, red-tape reduction, free trade agreements, the TPP and, of course, things like the ABCC, which is about productivity, about growing the economy. The best way to get the budget under control, to cut people's taxes, is to grow the economy and to control your spending. The ABCC is a key measure in that fight. It is a key productivity measure.

Today we read about an alternative approach that is anti-productivity, that goes in completely the opposite direction. What I refer to is the dodgy deal between the ACT Labor government and UnionsACT—unions such as the CFMEU—and the institutionalised corruption that goes with that.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The question that Senator Wong asked of Senator Cormann was about whether the federal budget would be delivered on 10 May and/or whether the Turnbull government's tax policy would be announced on 10 May. I have not heard the senator address the answers to either of those questions.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, I ask you to be mindful of the nature of the question that was asked and to stay close to that topic if you can.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, and I made very clear the chain—because getting the CFMEU and that lawlessness under control is a productivity measure that grows the economy and helps us get the budget under control. That is a big part of our budgetary strategy. The Labor Party do not want to hear about this, but the kind of institutionalised corruption that we read about today needs an airing.

We have seen the alternative approach, and it goes like this. This is a veto deal for the unions in the ACT—unions like the CFMEU—over procurement by the ACT government. We know from the trade union royal commission that the CFMEU targets some companies, particularly those without an EBA. We have seen the cases of Boral and so many others. We have seen the standover tactics here in Canberra and around the country. Under this agreement with the likes of the CFMEU, the CFMEU, who have that history of standover tactics and corruption, get a list of the tenderers. It gets worse. We have got a union who have a pattern of criminal and unlawful behaviour. Further than that, they control the preselections of ministers and the Chief Minister who signed this agreement.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I would ask you to bring the senator back to the motion before the chair, which is to take note of the answers given by Senator Cormann to the questions asked by Senator Wong—that was, 'Will the federal budget be delivered on 10 May?' and 'When will the Turnbull government's tax policy be announced?' There was nothing in the answer to that question about trade unions at all. I ask you to bring the senator back to the motion before the chair.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, can I encourage you to hear the words that were in the question and if you can confine your remarks to that, that would be helpful.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely am. I will respond to the point of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please take you seat, Senator Seselja. I have ruled on the point of order. Please just take your seat. This is a second point of order. Senator McEwen.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Seselja's response then or his continuation of this motion to take note of answers is directly defying your ruling of requiring him to return to the motion before the chair. I ask you again to return him to the motion before the chair.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: This is now a tactic, because they do not want to hear about the corruption in the union movement.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator Seselja.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No it is. I am responding to the point of order.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, that is not a point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a tactic.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a debating point.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to the point of order. I made it very clear.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, it is not about making a point. It is not about debating the chair.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to respond and I am being interjected. If I could respond to the point of order—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a question of relevance that has been ruled on.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put to you a couple of points. We have wide-ranging debate in these motions to take note often. I would make the second point that, in answering questions on budgetary matters, I am entitled to refer to productivity, growing the economy and union corruption, which affect that. And our efforts to clean that up is directly relevant to our efforts to grow the economy and bring the budget back into surplus.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a fine debating point, but I have ruled on the point of order by Senator McEwen. I would ask you to confine your remarks in a way that is somewhat resembling the nature of the question that was asked, because you are ranging very far and wide. I will give you the call and I ask you to respond appropriately.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank for your ruling, because I can understand why the Labor Party do not want to hear about this. We believe that productivity is important for getting the budget under control. When you see measures that undermine productivity, as we see in the ACT now with this deal between the Labor Party and CFMEU, we think it needs to be addressed. Do you know what happens if you address it? If you do not allow the stand-over merchants in the CFMEU to rule the roost, do you know what happens? You get better productivity in the building industry. You know what happens then? You get better economic growth. You grow the economy. What part of growing the economy is not relevant?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, resume your seat.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: He is nowhere near the question before the chair. He is deliberately ignoring your request to do so. I know they do not have much of a tax policy, and I know he probably does not want to talk about it, but he should try to state—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, you are now engaging in debate, so please resume your seat. Senator Seselja, that was a debating point not a point of order. Senator Seseslja, you are responding to the answer that was given by the minister in response to the question. Please contain your remarks that are close to both the question and the answer. You have the call, Senator Seselja.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which is exactly what I am doing, because we believe, in order to get the budget under control, you have to grow the economy. There are all sorts of handbrakes on the economy and one of them is union corruption. We are prepared to stand up against it. The Labor Party prefers to do deals with those who engage in it. They take money from them; they owe their preselections to them and now they outsource procurement to them here in the ACT. We have the very person who has pleaded guilty for blackmail here in the ACT, who is part of the CFMEU, and who is the sub-branch president of the Labor Party here in Canberra. The conflict of interest and the potential for corruption, when you give him a list of potential contractors, undermines confidence. People in the building industry who see this type of corruption and the turning of a blind eye by the ACT Labor Party is something we see around the country unfortunately. We heard today that these kinds of deals are not unique to the ACT. If you want to grow the economy and the Labor Party is interested in it, I will give you a tip: do not do deals like ACT Labor has done with unions ACT; do not sell out to corrupt unions; and do not give corrupt unionists and stand-over merchants a veto power over your procurement in the ACT or anywhere else. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a disgraceful performance that was. The simple questions before the Senate were: are we going to get a budget on the 10th; are we going to have look at a tax policy; and will we get time to debate the tax policy before the election? Senate Seselja gets a bomb and throws it over there, starts a bush fire down the road and says, 'Look over there. Do not look at the budget. Do not look at the really serious implications before the country. Do not let's debate the budget before the election. Let's start a fire somewhere else and hope the fire engines all run that way.' What an absolute disgrace.

We know that there is a very serious period before the Australian electorate, and we need to know exactly what is going on. I want it put on the record again: revenue for 2015 and 2016 is expected to be $405.4 billion, an increase of 5.5 per cent on the estimated revenue of 2014-15. And we know that expenses in 2015-16 are expected to be $434.5 billion, an increase of 3.4 per cent on the estimated expenses for 2014-15. We do have a picture that we are spending more than we are earning, and all we are saying is that this government should come clean about how it is going to address that. Senator Macdonald makes the point, 'I have been here 25 years. You wait till the budget and you will find out the day after.' I have also been here a short amount of time and I have learned this: things that are floated are backgrounded and put in the media. We know that the Treasurer allegedly, as reported in the media, has ruled out tax cuts. We know that a short while ago he was saying that bracket creep was a job destroyer and a growth risk, and we know that there are economic commentators well versed in the skill of estimating the drag on GDP that bracket creep may cause.

So it is fair enough; we know that the Manager of Opposition Business as late as today has said that there will be a tax policy out there. The only problem is that they do not seem to know which one they are going to bring out! They take one step forward and one step back: negative gearing is going to put house prices up and then it is going to put house prices down. They have no clear strategy or idea. Their only strategy is akin to what Senator Seselja's performance was—to talk about something which is totally irrelevant to what is before the Australian people.

Now, there has been a royal commission into alleged union corruption. There will be findings in all of that and that will be dealt with appropriately. That is an appropriate line of inquiry and it will take its course in the public domain. But the question before the chair today was about having a budget on 10 May. We know that there has been backgrounding that the House of Representatives can be recalled and they can put a budget through. We could be recalled to 3 May or we could be recalled a week early. It is a simple question: is the budget on 10 May? We do not really know; we will find out—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll let you know.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The next thing is: will we get a tax plan before that? 'We'll let you know.' Then, 'Will we get time to debate it before an election'—a really important question.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah—of course you will!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What? Half a day? Will we be recalled?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will we have estimates?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will we have estimates? Brilliant! Yes! Post every budget there are the estimates, where we actually have the paperwork which is a metre high and we try to burrow through it to find out what is going on. And when we do find out it is not always borne out. We know now, if we go back to Senator Carr's question, that one of the most fundamental things to Australia's growth and prosperity—the research and development conducted by CSIRO—has been diminished.

We know of 10 things that they have invented over the last 40 years or there about, from wi-fi to Aerogard. We know that there was a considerable sum of money repatriated to Australia as a result of the wi-fi technology and that has gone towards enhancing their facilities. As a member of the Public Works Committee I have been briefed across all of that. But it is an absolute disgrace that when we have scientists who are measuring the ice cap and doing critical work in the Antarctic, and who can show us maps of what the results will do to places in West Australia which are currently growing wheat and which will no longer be able to grow wheat, that the critical science has been abandoned by this government and it was not obvious in the budget. So we need to be able to look at a budget, pull it to pieces and ask the questions. Senator Wong simply asked if that were going to happen. We did not expect a fire to be lit on the CFMEU work.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to take note of answers to questions during question time from Senator Carr and Senator Wong.

The CSIRO and science in general have no greater friend then the National Party and, indeed, the Turnbull government. The CSIRO was set up by the National Party in 1926—by the minister at the time, Earl Page. It was set up specifically to grow and develop the agricultural industry and to increase ag productivity at the time by focusing on eradication of pests and improving our stock here in Australia. So the CSIRO has always, from its very inception, had a very close relationship with industry and scientists coming together to solve real-world problems on the ground.

I think that our commitment to science as the heart of our economic agenda going forward is unequivocal. This government is unequivocal about its backing of our scientists and the national infrastructure program—and I will get to that. Senator Carr and the former government oversaw the funding cliff that essential national scientific infrastructure program had under their government. They were full of bright ideas and very ready and quick with the press releases, but not so good on the implementation or the follow through.

When we go to our government's commitment to science we go to the $1.1 billion innovation agenda, where we are increasing the relationship between science and industry and where we want to increase the number of people not only working in STEM areas but also the number of students studying it. That requires a range of strategies to actually improve and increase turning young people on to the fabulous world of science. As a person who studied mathematics, I get excited about this stuff. The future is in the science, technology and mathematics subjects. The 21st century is going to be full of opportunity and potential, so get on board!

We are actually going to address the culture that exists in this country, where industry does not naturally go to universities to help solve their issues within their businesses, and nor do universities naturally seek out partnerships with small to medium enterprises. So we have incentivised those relationships. We want to increase the collaboration and cooperation between industry and universities, and also between universities. I think we have seen in other areas how Australia's university sector, when it collaborates, can come up with some really exciting results.

One of the things that I am quite excited about is increasing the access to data, because by making government data public to all researchers—not just to those in the CSIRO, but all the researchers in all our universities and our centres of excellence will have access to that data—that will actually drive innovation policy outcomes that we have not even thought about yet because that data has been locked away. As I have said, and as the Prime Minister has said many times, science is at the heart of our economic agenda.

If you listened to those on the other side you might think that we do not actually appreciate science or the CSIRO. But this government is providing the CSIRO with a record $3.1 billion worth of funding in the 2015 budget over the forward estimates. As I said, when we actually look at the Labor Party's vision for science, it does not extend beyond the front page. I particularly want to point to the NCRIS program. It is significant national infrastructure that is shared amongst our scientists, our leading universities and, indeed, academics across the world who are coming to Australia and doing their research in a collaborative fashion. Labor only funded that infrastructure and then said, 'No, it's not an ongoing program.' So we had a crisis that they did not solve over the forward estimates; we had to come in and solve it.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not listening to them; that's not what they're saying!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So do not come bleating to us now about a lack of commitment to science and scientists in this country, because it is our government that is backing them—backing them not only with new ways to address the challenges of the 21st century but supporting the work in very real and tangible ways by supporting their infrastructure. Those opposite are very good at the bright ideas but they lack the courage, conviction and diligence to actually see the implementation.

When we go to the issue around climate change research, the CSIRO has assured that Australia will have actual climate change models that will be relevant to us and assist us to deal with the challenges going forward in the 21st century around that.

I will go to the tax issues. When I looked at the Labor Party's tax policies they were taxing the poor with the cigarette tax, they were taxing housing with the negative gearing, they were taxing jobs with the good old carbon tax, and the classic tax was the mining tax, which did not get any revenue at all. So let's not look— (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to make comments principally on the answers provided by Senator Cormann—noting that the debate has so far ranged much broader than that. Of course, what Senator Cormann was asked was about the timing of the budget, whether or not we would know the government's tax policy before the budget, and whether or not there would be adequate time to scrutinise the budget. These are important questions, and they are particularly important questions for this government and this Prime Minister.

As we know, just five months ago Malcolm Turnbull stood out in the courtyard outside here and he declared that he would be challenging the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, for the leadership. Apparently his reason—and he made it very clear at the time—was that there was an urgent need for economic leadership. That was the pitch. That was the pitch to his party room and that was the pitch to the Australian people. He said of the then Prime Minister:

He has not been capable of providing the economic confidence that business needs. Now we are living as Australians in the most exciting time. The big economic changes that we're living through here and around the world offer enormous challenges and enormous opportunities.

And we need a different style of leadership. We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities … that respects the people's intelligence, that explains these complex issues and then sets out the course of action … and makes a case for it.

It all sounds pretty good actually, but what a fall from grace it has been in that very short period of time—in just five months.

I understand what the Prime Minister was trying to say at that time: that when you are facing complex economic issues, and when you are facing an economic transition with many variables, government should do what it can to provide certainty and confidence to the community, to business and to families. You would think, if that is the priority, that it would be pretty easy to commit clearly to a date, time and place for the federal budget. After all, it is pretty much the same time every year. Instead, for reasons which are almost inexplicable to me and I suspect for many Australian voters, the government has created an incredible aura of absolute chaos by being utterly incapable of giving a straight answer about where and when the budget will be held. We now have endless speculation that the budget will be brought forward, even though the original date is just eight weeks away.

The Treasurer has said simply that they are working towards a 10 May budget, which sounds like weasel words if you have ever heard them. Today Senator Cormann did say that the budget would be delivered on 10 May, but Senator Scullion just then interjected, telling opposition senators on this question, 'We'll let you know.' It is utterly unclear to me, and I believe to everybody else in this place and I suspect some people on the government benches, when this budget is actually going to take place.

As Mr Bowen, Labor's shadow Treasurer, has pointed out, this is not a trivial issue. The question of budget timing is not trivial, and governments do not muck around with it in this way. If government were choosing to do this, it would be a break with precedent. It has not been done since the 1950s. For more than 60 years we have worked on the assumption that the budget timetable has been clear and understood. But now, only weeks before the budget, the government cannot tell us what day it is on, let alone what is in it. Honestly, it is a sign of complete and utter desperation.

The longer Mr Turnbull is in office, the worse the government's position gets and the clearer it becomes that there is, in fact, no economic plan and the economic leadership that was promised is not going to be delivered. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has been reduced to quite desperate measures and the people around him are following along. They are rushing towards an election because they presumably hope that the complete lack of economic leadership shown by the Prime Minister and his cabinet will not catch-up with them before election day. I think the public are onto them.

There is nothing calm and methodical about this process without a clear budget timetable. There is nothing calm and methodical about a set of budget propositions which come and go, which swing like a weathervane in the wind depending on the mood of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and whether or not they bothered making a phone call to one another. Watching the coalition trying to decide what goes in their budget is like watching— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.