Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 21 June 2001
Page: 28399


Ms ELLIS (12:01 PM) —I just want to speak very briefly, given that I had slightly insufficient time in my earlier contribution to the budget debate. I want to speak specifically about research and development and innovation and the effect that has on industry and science, and on resource development in this country.

The innovation statement that the government announced some little time back now puts some money back in, actually $3 billion in round figures, if I recall, which is attached to that innovation statement. In actual fact we have seen under this government in its time in office some $5 billion come out of universities and research and development in general terms. Whilst we would be very happy to see $3 billion go back in, it is a pity it is not the $5 billion and it is pity there are not growth funds on top of the $5 billion. The problem is also that we would not be wanting to hold our breath to see this money because most of it appears in four or five years time and it is, in fact, $2 billion short of what we have seen taken out of the process since this government has been in office.

I specifically pay attention, however, to the situation facing an organisation like the CSIRO. The continuing job cuts that have been forced on the CSIRO show the true government picture, in my view. You cannot, on the one hand, have programs like Backing Australia's Ability whilst not being prepared to invest in the CSIRO, which I believe to be our premier national science agency. This agency is now about to lose another 110 staff, on top of the 1,000, or thereabouts, who have already gone since this government came to power. How can we hope to see the innovation needed by Australian industry to meet the challenges of this century with this continual attack on the CSIRO?

I am proud that, in this country, we have produced some of the best scientific minds and some of the best scientific outcomes the world has seen, and we are internationally regarded in that respect. Our economy and our future depend on this sort of investment. We have seen cuts to the CSIRO that are totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable. We have seen $5 billion taken out of our universities and our research and development programs and we have seen only $3 billion of that go back under the fancy new packages that this government comes up with. If we really truly want to believe in our research and development future; if we really want to see some investment for the benefit not only of this country but of the world—may I be so bold as to say—organisations like the CSIRO ought to be getting growth funds, they ought to be getting an investment into them. With each budget that comes along we should not see an attack on an organisation like this—and it has to be described as nothing more or less than an attack when you see the debilitating loss of expertise, corporate knowledge and investment in human input in that organisation.

My brief time today is really to draw the government's attention to an organisation like the CSIRO, internationally regarded, with a history that many other organisations around the world could envy, and do. If a government pretending to govern this country wants to say that it believes in our scientific future and that it believes in the benefits of that scientific future that flow through to our economy, and if it believes that to gain any advantage in the world we need to invest in these areas of policy, then for heaven's sake I implore it to be serious about an organisation such as the CSIRO—and others, but that is the one I am specifically addressing today—and I call upon it to be more honest in its appraisal of how it is tackling the staffing, particularly. An organisation like this cannot continually have government funds cut without having to address things like salaries and wages for employees. One hundred and ten staff is just ridiculous, but it is on top of what has already happened collaterally over the last few years. I would like to impress upon the government that if it is going to be serious about this, then it also has to be honest about it and invest appropriately.