Transcript of Question and Answer Session Following Senator Kim Carr's Address to the National Press Club. (March 20, 2008)

The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) held its annual two day "Science Meets Parliament" event this Tuesday and Wednesday. Combined with the weekly Wednesday National Press Club Luncheon, the researchers and journos listened for thirty minutes to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr talking on "Science Serving Society (See Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Addresses Science Meets Parliament / National Press Club. (March 19, 2008)).

Below is the transcript of the thirty minute question and answer session as supplied by Senator Carr's department. TFW has only edited out the references to "applause" and "laughter", which were frequent.

 E&OE - Proof Only

 Question Topics

    · ALP Factions.

    · $500 Million Green Car Innovation Fund (2 Questions).

    · Hybrid vehicles.

    · Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Dr Ziggy Switkowski.

    · Future of Australian manufacturing.

    · Joint research between industry / universities, and scientific criticism.

    · Media reporting of science.

    · Defence budget spending.

    · Dr Ziggy Switkowski and support for the Australian uranium industry.

    · Balance between commercialisation and blue sky research.

    · National ICT Australia (NICTA).

KEN RANDALL:     Thank you minister.  As usual we have a period of questions; we may even be able to get some questions from this expert audience later on.  But we’ll start the day with media questions and Andrew Fraser.

QUESTION:  Minister, Andrew Fraser from The Canberra Times.  You emphasised the absolute link between innovation and productivity.  I was wanting to be perhaps somewhat cheeky and ask if I could have had innovation in the context of one piece of infrastructure that goes to the whole of government, that being the Australian Labor Party.

Last year, your leader Kevin Rudd often talked down the formal links between the union movement and the Labor Party and this year he’s succeeded in formally and finally severing the hold of the factions over Ministry selection.

I’m wondering if it’s incumbent on you as one of four, sometime factional convenors in the cabinet, to take the Prime Ministerial hint and reduce the union and factional influence, not only in the caucus, but in your party’s national executive and national conference?

KIM CARR:   Well thank you Andrew for that really… I always appreciate questions on science and research.

Yeah.  And you’d have to expect that here I suppose.  But Andrew, what I can say to you is the Labor Party has changed its caucus rules in recent times, which reflected the Prime Minister’s desire and was widely supported within the federal caucus.  In my judgement it was the right thing to do.  Much comment on these issues is based on a very limited understanding of how the Labor Party actually works, and I think that you share that Andrew because of your colleagues – not a great deal of expertise is demonstrated on the actual workings of the Labor Party as distinct from the prejudices.

What I do say to Andrew is that we are a party now in government in every state and territory and at a national level.  And for those that criticise the Labor Party and its structures, and its participation by its members, that is one little fact that’s difficult to overcome, if you say that, things are fatally flawed.

KEN RANDALL:     Next question’s from Siobhan Ryan.

QUESTION:  Hi, Siobhan Ryan from The Australian.  Mr Carr, I understand that you have been in talks with car makers. I’m just looking at the issue of how to make use of the green car fund.  I’d like your take on how those talks are progressing and when we will actually see real developments in developing a hybrid vehicle in Australia as a result of this fund?

And also if I may, the issue of picking winners.  That carries a lot of risks as well.  How are you planning to get around those risks?

KIM CARR:   Well thank you for the question.  Look I’m not in a position to discuss individual discussions with companies – there are commercial in confidence considerations here.  So what I can say to you in general is that we are very, very determined to transform the Australian automotive industry.

This is an industry that employs over 60,000 Australians.  I mean it varies, sometimes up to 70,000 – in recent years it’s been of that dimension.  I’m very concerned to ensure that the industry is placed on a sustainable basis and that we are able to see the industry within the context of its international capacity.  After all this is truly an international industry.

The automotive industry is of absolutely vital strategic importance to the Australian economy, the Australian society, and it is vital to the rest of the manufacturing sector.  And for those reasons we will take whatever steps we can to ensure that the prosperity of this industry is sustained in the future.  I do take the view, the Australian automotive industry does enjoy a prosperous future, if the right decisions are taken now.

We won’t be in the business of telling companies what to do.  We won’t be in the business of prescribing particular technologies.  We will be in the business of discussing with them the options for the future and it is companies that put money on the table.  We will work with them to ensure that the full range of options are available and that’s the process in which I’m engaged right now.

The industry has an enormous – has made an enormous contribution to this country, and will.  There are some 12 countries around the world that enjoy the capacity to build a vehicle, that is from design through to construction.  We’re one of them.  We’re one of them.  Every one of those countries has a very strong relationship between its government and the local industry.  Many of those countries have much more substantial relationships than we do and I want to ensure that our relationship with the auto industry is placed one; within its international context and two; on a sustainable basis.  And three; ensure that the skills development, the research and development capacity of the industry and the ability to make products that people want to buy, is maintained in Australia.

KEN RANDALL:     Next question’s from Alex Symonds.

QUESTION:  Minister, Alex Symonds from the Fin Review.  Just a bit more on the green car fund, especially given your discussion about innovation and sort of the environmental outcomes that it can bring.  You’ve talked about that it’s a $500 million fund and that the Government would contribute one dollar for every three dollars worth of private investment.  Now are you going to cap the amount that can go to individual companies?  Because if a company has a sort of sizeable project, it could take up the bulk of that funding in theory.

KIM CARR:   Thank you again. The Bracks Review into the automotive industry will be looking at all of these questions. This is our opportunity to actually have an evidence based policy framework. I mean governments often talk about it. It’s rare that governments do provide the framework in which they can occur. So that’s the starting point. We are clearly aimed at ensuring that we use public money well, we get value for money and that we have a co-investment approach to industry development. 

It is clearly not feasible that one company would take all of the fund. That would be frankly a nonsensical proposition and that’s not our intention. Our intention is to work with companies for them to come to us with specific proposals and to ensure that there is on a co-investment basis they are able to put practical measures before the Government and for us to actually discuss that within the industry.

We’re not saying it has to be a hybrid, we’re not saying it has to be diesel, fuel cells or any other particular technological form, after all it’s the companies that have got to make decisions.

Mitsubishi made some decisions about a particular model, and as a consequence that model didn’t sell. A lot of people paid the price for that, but in the end it’s not Government’s job to guarantee that company executives will make the right decisions. Our job is to try to work with them and provide the policy framework to provide the highest level of certainty that the right decisions are in fact made.

KEN RANDALL:     Peter Veness.

QUESTION:  Minister, Peter Veness from Australian Associated Press. Just further on the hybrid car discussions that are underway at the moment, there are essentially two models that are going forward with any real certainty I suppose - the Prius and the talk of the Camry hybrid. I wonder, given that we already make the Camry here in Australia, certainly I would have thought the Government at this stage would be leaning towards that model. Is there any reason that we would be leaning any other way?

KIM CARR:   It’s a great joy. What I was trying to suggest to you is that it’s inappropriate for me to comment on specific conversations with individual companies. Clearly we are in the business of moving as quickly as we can to establish the framework in which the industry itself is able to transform. I want this industry to be put on a sustainable basis. Now if one of those questions arises in regard to a particular form of technology we will have a good look at it, but we’re not going to be prescriptive. After all to develop a new model costs something like a billion dollars, a billion dollars. It has a lifespan of about seven years. So these are not simple things that you simply turn on and off.

Now while there is much comment in the press about how easy it is to turn this industry around I might suggest it’s not based on sound research, which I trust is the topic of this conversation here today. It is essentially an industry that needs to be understood for what it’s actually able to do, not what you’d like it to do.

KEN RANDALL:     Simon Grose.

QUESTION:  Simon Grose from Science and Media in The Canberra Times. I think it’s fair to say that your political career has been marked by anti-nuclear warrioring and now that you’ve reached the pinnacle of that career you are now in…

You are now responsible for our nuclear science and research organisation. And you made it a bit personal a year ago when Ziggy Switkowski was appointed the chair of ANSTO’s board. You said it was a controversial appointment. You said that he’d earned his political stripes writing the recent report for the PM recommending that nuclear power is imposed on Australia. And you said that with Dr Switkowski as chairman is it evident that ANSTO’s future now lies more in advocacy and management of nuclear power as a source of energy.

I understand you’ve had meetings and you’ve talked with Dr Switkowski since you’ve become minister. Does Dr Switkowski enjoy your full confidence? 

And addressing the larger issues that ANSTO’s facing at the moment, the fact that its new reactor ran for a few months and now looks like it’s being turned off for at least a year, are you confident with the management of that project before and after the problems they had? And what can you tell us about the effect it’s had on radiotherapy treatments in Australia?

KIM CARR:   Thank you very much, Simon. The comments I made about Ziggy were at the time accurate.

And you recall there’s been substantially a major event that’s occurred since that time and [Indistinct] election. And I can say to you that Ziggy does enjoy my full confidence. He is one of the few [indistinct] offered his resignation on the appointment of the Government, and I think he’s behaved entirely honourably.

I mean I don’t think it’s inappropriate if a chairman of a statutory authority working with government, elected government of the day makes views known in reports. He behaved properly in that process. He put his view; I’m not going to pretend for a moment that he’s going to agree with me on every issue. But they’re not employed to agree with me personally on every issue, they’re employed to do a job for the statutory authority and work within the law. And I’ve got no reason to believe that he has done anything contrary to that. So he does enjoy my confidence.

Now as to the management of the reactor … look this is a serious business, I mean it might well be a small reactor by international standards but the safety requirements in terms of ARPANZA are very, very important. And I have to be confident that every step is being taken in cooperation with ARPANZA to ensure the safe running of that reactor.  And I’m confident that that’s happening. If it takes a while to get it right, so be it. The last thing you want to do is to see people cut corners and do the wrong thing in regard to their statutory responsibilities whether it be ANSTO or ARPANZA. 

QUESTION:  Radiotherapy do you want to talk about that?

KIM CARR:   The radiotherapy? Oh look there is no doubt that it’s a cost to Australia which is being managed. I want to see it up and running as soon as possible, within the law. Within the regulatory framework that APANZA sets. And I’ve got no doubt that will be the case.

KEN RANDALL:     Tim Colebatch.

QUESTION:  Tim Colebatch from The Age. Senator Carr I’d like to go from the R&D end of the topic of your speech to the I&X end, the investment and exports, and moving away from the car industry specifically to manufacturing more generally. We have had numerous speeches over the last couple of years from senior Treasury officials including Ken Henry arguing that essentially Australia’s more or less at full employment and that we face a future of a long boom in mineral exports which is going to see our currency remain at a high level and hence this extraordinarily difficult environment for manufacturing that we have now perpetuated into the future as far as we can see.

What is there that Government can do to try and - well firstly should Government try and maintain an industry structure that we have now. Certainly the advice from Treasury clearly is that we should let manufacturers die because we don’t need them. Mineral exporters will provide our export income. What is it, apart from what you’ve already announced obviously, that Government can do to ensure a future and should it ensure a future for manufacturing?

KIM CARR:   Well thanks once again, the question’s a very good one.

Yes there are differing views in the Australian - within Australia, about the future of Australian manufacturing. I can tell you from the - in terms of the national account figures manufacturing is actually growing. That’s not to say that manufacturing doesn’t face acute challenges. The dollar being but one of them. Skills shortages are another, interest rates being another. We have a major difficulty in terms of market access in a number of sectors. We do have clearly some major competitive pressures in terms of imports and the development of the capacity in China and India. So there’s a whole complex series of questions that need attention.

But do I think the manufacturing industry is important to Australia? You bet I do. You bet I do. 1.1 million Australians earn their living out of it. Major industrial countries around the world see the value of manufacturing. Tell me one that doesn’t. If you want a balanced economy, a balanced society, you’ve got to have manufacturing. And has the state got a responsibility to ensure that it works with industry to guarantee the prosperity? I say it does. And that’s to do with not just economic questions, but social ones as well.

I mean on issues of climate change, I mean this is core business for us. We’ve got to ensure that manufacturing is able to respond to that. You see with issues of climate change it’s not just a middle class issue, it’s an issue that concerns blue collar people as well.

Now skills formation, research and development, investment decisions more generally, these are matters that should concern Government policy and they certainly concern this Government’s policy. The Prime Minister’s made it very clear that he doesn’t want to be a Prime Minister of a country that doesn’t make things any more. And that’s a view I fully and totally support.

KEN RANDALL:     Laurie Wilson.

QUESTION:  Laurie Wilson, I’m a freelance journalist and director of the National Press Club. Senator Carr. Two questions: First of all we know it’s been a problem for a long time, the level of research conducted by industry in this country, a long, long time in terms of international benchmarks. You made the point that in a recent survey the research conducted jointly between industry and universities we ranked last. So what needs to be done?  What are your aims in terms of turning that around firstly?

And secondly in terms of your desire to turn around this sort of decade of political correctness where scientists have lost the will to speak out.  Obviously people do speak out when they’re supporting a government.  They tend not to be so open when they’re criticising a government.  Will you think you’ve failed, if in fact we don’t see the level of criticism of the Government actually rise?

KIM CARR:   Well, thank you.  Look, in terms of business R&D, look, there’s a great many issues that affect the capacity of business to invest in R&D, and we acknowledge that.  But that’s why we’ve established the National Innovation Review because we want people to actually engage with us about what can be done to improve the situation.  We’re not prescriptive again about what needs to be done, and clearly we have policy parameters we’re looking at.

But the Cutler Review is designed to allow people to have their say.  As I made the point earlier, this is about evidence based policy making.  Now one of the issues that we’re considering there, and this is of many – I don’t want to say to you it’s the only one, is the R&D tax concession.  And we’ve got a particular sub-group working on that issue.  Now I made it clear, there are a range of questions that need attention in that regard.

The fact is we need to double our R&D effort, public and private in this country if we’re to keep pace with our competitors.  I expect the sub-committee will come back with recommendations on what changes need to be taken.  I want, and I have no reason to believe that we won’t get a very serious examination of the options that are available to us.  In the election, we talked about actions that need to be taken, including measures about the base rate, at the 125, which is returning what, seven and a half cents in the dollar, how adequate that is, how appropriate that is.  How do we encourage sustainable investment from small and medium size enterprises?

Fact is, the ABS tells us two-thirds of Australian firms do not spend any money whatsoever on innovation.  I think that’s got to change.  But I also think we’ve got to find a mechanism by which we see our universities and public research agencies work more closely together.  Is it appropriate that there be a premium in terms of R&D tax concessions where there is direct collaboration?  Those are the sorts of questions that I think need consideration.  There’s the offsets.  There’s a range of other matters that need attention which will be done.

On the other question about political correctness, look there’s no doubt in my mind that the previous government had a view that our public intellectuals, our researchers, our university professors, were essentially hostile.  They launched the cultural wars because they felt people were fundamentally hostile, you know, there’s some sort of left wing conspiracy to bring them into disrepute.  And I think the fact that Nelson chose to intervene on 10 separate occasions at the ARC to block grants without reason – he gave no reasons for it – suggested that there was a level of intimidation against our researchers.

There were the situations in the CSIRO and a number of other leading research agencies where scientists who have told me directly they felt intimidated.  Now I want to change the culture within these agencies.  That’s why we’re proposing the charters and within the universities, the funding compacts, because we need to not only drive cultural change and structural reform, but we need to see ourselves as part of a broader global community.  And you can’t do that if people are hiding their views.

Okay, it’s going to be uncomfortable from time to time.  That’s life.  I think we can manage that risk.  There will be silly people that do silly things.  We can manage that risk.  By and large, we have the capacity here in terms of our intellectual capabilities for people to better inform the public and better inform governments about the options that are available to them.  And that’s what our charters are all about, providing that security to allow our scientists to make a contribution.

Now when it’s all said and done, what are universities, for instance, for?  They are to train the next generation, provide knowledge, you know, discovery – new knowledge.  And the third is civil engagement.  It’s a core function.  You can’t do that if people are terrified to speak out.  So yeah, we’ll run the risk.  I think it’s worth it.

KEN RANDALL:     Morris Riley.

QUESTION:  Thank you for your speech there, Minister.  It was very interesting.  My question is about media reporting in the science field.  I think it’s fair to say that our media reporting on science is a lot less than say, politics or sports or celebrity.

I wonder whether you’ve got any ideas how you can assist the science community, your department, about how we might increase their exposure because it’s clearly important to public opinion about supporting science.  And doesn’t seem to have its weighted share of information that’s in our media, and I just wondered what could be done about it from a government level?

KIM CARR:   Well, if our offer’s taken up, media outlets are going to need to employ a lot more science journalists.  There’s going to be a lot more work, and that’s where it starts.  I mean what level of interest is there at the editorial level in these broader questions?  What is the level within our major outlets on research more generally?  You know, where does it rate?  Does it, you know, does it get on the front page that often?

And I’m not just talking about the gee whiz stuff, I’m talking about an understanding of skills development, for instance.  How many people know how far we are slipping by comparison with China?  You know, Chinese are doubling their R&D effort every seven years.  Is there a debate about this in this country?  Now in Europe, this debate did occur at a policy level, and there was – in response to the formation of the Lisbon Declaration.  We’ve seen in England the white paper that was released just last Friday in response to Sainsbury’s report, Rising to the Top.  We’ve seen in the United States, the report on Rising Above the Gathering Storm.  There’s not much response from Bush, I might say.

But you know, I’m saying that the international trend is for people to engage at the highest level.  I want to see the public involved.  So you ask the question, well how do we do that?  Well, we need the media to actually engage in these questions as well.

KEN RANDALL:     Oh well, let’s go back to Andrew Fraser.

QUESTION:  This morning, the Prime Minister re-emphasised his absolute commitment to three per cent real growth in the Defence budget until 2016.  How difficult does the quarantining of that massive scale of dollars make your job at the Cabinet table on behalf of science and research?

KIM CARR:   Well, thank you Andrew.  That’s – look, the fact is, we’re in for a very tough budgetary period.  We’ve been left with a quite serious inflationary legacy and the Government takes these responsibilities very seriously.  We have indicated there are areas in which we cannot move.  And that – yes, that does mean there’s additional pressure in other areas.  However, I’m not in the position to discuss any specific matters which are subject to the budget processes, but I do acknowledge that the fact that you do make policy decisions in some areas has consequences for the rest of us.

KEN RANDALL:     Siobhan Ryan.

QUESTION:  Hello again.  Minister, can I ask, why didn’t you accept Ziggy’s offer of resignation?  And secondly, we won’t be having nuclear power plants in Australia, that was made very clear at – during the election.  But where do you see the Government offering support if any, to the uranium industry, which is a major earner for this country?

KIM CARR:   Thank you.  Well, first of all, let me deal with – I mean, I think Ziggy did the right thing.  But we didn’t accept it because we’ve no need to.  I’ve seen nothing that he’s done that has in breach of his responsibilities or the ethics that one would expect from a chairman of a statutory authority.  He acted in concert with the elected government of the day.  His comments were always very measured and based on professional opinion.  They were not outside his area of expertise.  I mean, I can’t see any difficulty with him, even if I disagree strongly with those opinions.

In regard to the nuclear research, we are undertaking extensive nuclear research in this country.  After all, we do have a research reactor.  And it does produce quite substantial benefits for this country.  And it’s not just in the area of medical research, which of course in itself is substantial.  It’s also in mining and manufacturing and a whole range of other civil engineering functions.  It is an instrument of quite substantial importance to us, and that’s why it is disappointing that it’s offline at the moment.  We want to see our enhancement of nuclear research and we’ll be engaging in the projects to ensure that that happens.

As for the uranium industry, well clearly that’s an area of responsibility of my colleague, Martin Ferguson.  The Labor Party position was de… outlined at the last national conference and it’s clearly a position that I support.  I would expect that, consistent with our international with our international obligations, particularly in regard to proliferation, and in normal environmental concerns, we will see a growth in the industry.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that will support an extension on nuclear power to Australia.  On the contrary I can confirm that we won’t be building nuclear reactors.

KEN RANDALL:     Alex Symonds.

QUESTION:  Minister, just a question on research that you were talking about.  Your – the chair of your review was addressing this same audience yesterday and talked about over the last ten years that there has been a focus on commercialisation.  I just wanted to see where you saw the balance perhaps, between commercialisation and that blue sky, knowledge- research which you’ve said is important?

KIM CARR:   I think the debate on commercialisation is obviously an important one.  But in recent times, is somewhat distorted the discussion about the nature of public research in this country.  There was a review – sorry, there was a view which was propagated by the previous government, for instance, in regard to our CRC program which saw public research removed from the – or public benefit research removed from the guidelines.  As a consequence, a number of very important public benefit research CRCs were effectively defunded.  I’ve announced that we will restore public benefit research to the guidelines for the CRC program.

Further, there was a discussion, and this is a point the Productivity Commission itself makes, in previous times, about the roles of universities.  While the Productivity Commission said the question of commercialisation was important in its own right, that was not the core function of the university and if you look at the hard facts on these issues, commercialisation revenue as a percentage of total university revenue in this country, as it is in the United States and everywhere else, a tiny percentage.  In fact, in this country, even the State Governments put more money into universities than we get from commercialised – commercialisation of research.

There needs to be a different discussion.  It’s not about a simplistic view of the nature of commercialisation.  It’s about the relationship between the public and private sectors.  It’s about whether or not companies and public researchers can talk to one another.  Whether or not there’s an awareness of what goes on in each other’s camps and it’s my impression that there’s not a great awareness despite all the rhetoric.  And that’s why I’m suggesting in regard to the R&D tax concession as an issue; there are other means to encourage people to put skin in the game, to encourage that cultural change that’s necessary, to ensure that people understand each other a lot better than they currently do.

But the answer to this is not to suggest that we can measure the performance of a university on how much money it makes on the side.  It’s got much broader functions than that.

KEN RANDALL:     And let’s have a final question for today from Simon Grose.

QUESTION:  Speaking of ministerial responsibility, I would like to raise the issue of our national ICT research centre of excellence – NICTA.  It’s – after a couple of months it became clear that, well kind of clear that both you and your senatorial and ministerial colleague and perhaps factional adversaries, Senator Stephen Conroy, share responsibility for NICTA.  I just wonder if you could tell us how that shared responsibility works.  And what do you foresee for NICTA?  It’s got, I think, about three years left in its current five year funding round.  It’s got pretty generous funding of five years.  What kind of – how will you test the value of NICTA, going forward?

KIM CARR:   Well thanks Simon.  I wouldn’t necessarily agree with your description of my relationship with Senator Conroy… I think that’s most unfair.  Much misunderstood that relationship, you know.

Well, Christmas... Now, look, NICTA is an extremely – is an important agency within government.  It’s an imitative that the ARC funds and Margaret’s here somewhere – Margaret Shiel  - 50 per cent of the funding comes from the Australian Research Council, so it’s 50 per cent funded through our portfolio.  And so obviously I have a keen interest in its progress.

You mentioned there was some argy-bargy that goes on as new governments are formed, new departments are formed, new administrative arrangements are put in place.  And that’s true.  The administrative orders aren’t automatically perfect, and I don’t recall a government where they were.  And so the agency currently resides within Senator Conroy’s portfolio, but we have a particular interest in its welfare, and I look forward to working very closely with my colleague, to ensure its prosperity.

Thank you.

KEN RANDALL:     Minister thank you very much.  Good to see you enjoying life so much in this new role.

 ENDS