Chapter 3
Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio
3.1
This chapter summarises certain key areas of interest raised during the
committee's consideration of budget estimates for the 2018–19 financial year
for the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio. This chapter of the report
follows the order of proceedings and is an indicative, not exhaustive, account
of issues examined.
3.2
On 31 May and 5 June 2018, the committee heard evidence from Senator the
Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Innovation and Jobs, Senator the Hon. Matthew
Canavan, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, and Senator the Hon.
James McGrath, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, along with officers
from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) and
agencies including:
- Department of Industry Innovation and Science––Programs 1, 2, and
3;
- Office of Innovation and Science Australia;
-
Anti-Dumping Commission;
- Office of the Chief Scientist;
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation;
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;
- National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority;
- Geoscience Australia;
-
Australian Institute of Marine Science; and
- IP Australia;
3.3
Senators present over the course of the two day's hearing included
Senator Hume (Chair), Senator Ketter (Deputy Chair), Senators Bushby, Carr, Colbeck,
Hanson-Young, O'Neill, Patrick, Rhiannon, Rice, Stoker, Storer, Watt.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science
Australia 2030: Prosperity through
Innovation
3.4
The committee asked officers from the Department of Industry, Innovation
and Science (the Department) about a range of issues. In particular, the
committee sought information about Innovation and Science Australia's new
strategic plan–– Australia 2030: Prosperity through Innovation (2030
plan). Officers from the Department explained that the 2030 plan was developed
over the last several years as part of the government's National Innovation and
Science Agenda (NISA).[1]
3.5
The 2030 plan sets out a 15 year strategic plan for Australia's
innovation systems, and makes 30 recommendations which centre around five
strategic imperatives: education, industry, Government, research and
development, and culture and ambition.[2]
3.6
Officers from the Department confirmed that the government's response to
the 2030 plan gave a 'strong endorsement' of the 30 recommendations, noting
that the 2018–19 Budget contained a number of measures that take action on those
recommendations:
For example, government made a $2.4 billion investment into
research, science and technology. This included $1.9 billion over 12 years in
additional funding for national and science research infrastructure. It also
included measures that address artificial intelligence, skills development and
export competitiveness. There was also $500 million in funding over 10 years to
support the Genomics Health Futures Mission.[3]
3.7
Officers further commented that:
...the 2030 plan has greatly informed the government's
investment decisions and will continue to do so. The government will continue
to work with ISA to further strengthen Australia's innovation system and
support economic growth.[4]
3.8
Noting that 27 out of the 30 recommendations were agreed, or agreed in
principle by the government, the committee asked officers from the Department
about why Recommendation 6 of the report, relating to research and development
(R&D), was only noted, not agreed:
Recommendation 6:
Adopt as the top priority of innovation policy the reversal
of the current decline in business expenditure on research and development,
with a headline goal of achieving a medium-term growth rate not less than that
seen in 1999–2015.
The contribution to this goal made by government support for
business R&D should be strengthened by:
- ensuring, at a minimum, that total government support for
science, research and innovation does not fall below its medium-term average of
0.63 per cent of gross domestic product
- implementing the recommendations of the 2016 Review of the
R&D Tax Incentive to improve the effectiveness, integrity and collaboration
impact of the program, with the following adjustments
- the
cap referred to in Recommendation 3 of the report should be set at $4 million
per year, and a maximum cumulative refund of $40 million per company should be
applied
- the
threshold referred to in Recommendation 4 of the report should be replaced with
a trigger set at 1 per cent of total annual expenditure, such that all R&D
expenditure is claimable (subject to any other limits) once the trigger level
is reached
-
prioritising new and redirected investment in stimulating
business R&D to programs that directly support activity in areas of
competitive strength and strategic priority (e.g. Cooperative Research Centres
– CRCs, CRC Projects, Entrepreneurs’ Programme and Industry Growth Centres).[5]
3.9
Officers from the Department explained that the reforms to the R&D
tax incentive are likely to encourage and increase R&D investment by
companies:
...so you don't need to count how much we spend, as a
government, in supporting that R&D. Rather, by reforming this we're likely
to increase the incentive for companies to do more R&D, so we expect to
have companies that have an incentive to do more R&D.[6]
Guidelines on the recognition of
sex and gender
3.10
The committee asked the Department for an update on its implementation
of the government's guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender. Officers
advised that the Department had implemented the guidelines and that it is now
possible to identify as gender X in the Department's Human Resources management
information system.[7]
3.11
Officers also noted that gender X can be selected on their external
public-facing pages and forms:
Both the Aurion and PageUp systems that we use as part of our
HRMIS are in line with the guidance from the Attorney-General's Department. We
did that prior to the July 2016 deadline. It's something that can be done for
anyone outward-facing who's applying into the department. Existing employees in
the department were advised that gender X is available to be nominated, and
they can change their previous statements to gender X. We continue to advise
all staff that they can take up that option.[8]
3.12
Officers further explained that the Department also has inclusive
language guidelines and supporting gender affirmation guidelines that have been
made available through their Pride Network and that those guidelines will be
used across the Department both externally facing and internally facing.[9]
Women in STEM
3.13
The committee noted a budget measure to help increase the participation
of women in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Officers from
the department provided more detail on the measure, noting that the extra $4.5
million builds on a previous commitment by government which came out of the
NISA. The new budget measure contains funding for a number of initiatives:
The recent measure includes the commitment for the government
to appoint a women in STEM ambassador, who will advocate for gender equity in
STEM, raise awareness of the issues, prosecute the case for change, build
visibility and promote women in all STEM disciplines. The government will also
support the development of a toolkit, which will encourage school-age girls to
participate in STEM education. It will help them understand what a STEM career
can involve and also assist them in matching their interests to a STEM career.[10]
3.14
The committee sought more detail about the 'women in STEM' ambassador
position, and how the ambassador would be selected. Officers from the
Department advised the committee that the management of the position would be
done through the Department, but that no formal decision had been taken as to where
in the Department the ambassador would be based. Officers also noted that
nominations for the position could be made either through referral from other
bodies or through self-nomination. Officers confirmed that the announcement of
the new 'women in STEM' ambassador would be made by the end of 2018.[11]
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
3.15
The committee asked representatives from ANSTO about the incident of
radiation exposure at Lucas Heights, noting that the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) had tabled a report about the
incident in Parliament on 26 August 2017.[12]
3.16
Dr Adi Paterson, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ANSTO, acknowledged
the serious nature of this incident and provided the committee with details of
the incident:
A quality-control worker was undertaking a procedure, which has
been in place for many, many years and which is to provide quality control of a
nuclear medicine precursor—molybdenum 99. This is kept in a vial within a
shielded container. As the staff member was holding the vial with tongs and
decapping it, it came out of the shielding and into the general area of the
fume hood in which the work was taking place. That involved a splash of Mo-99
onto the double gloves that are normally worn in this situation.
3.17
Dr Paterson noted that Mo-99 is a highly radioactive liquid, which
results in an 'understood process of accumulated distress to the tissues over
time', meaning that the tissue can initially appear unaffected and the effect
of the radioactive substance will appear gradually over time. Dr Paterson
confirmed that the woman involved in the incident continues to be treated and
supported by the ANSTO Medical Centre and the associated staff.
3.18
Dr Paterson explained to the committee that there is likely not to be
any
long-term consequences for the woman; however, she would have an increased
potential risk of cancer to the extremities. He noted that the current cancer
risk for the whole population is 'of the order of 1½ persons per thousand, and
that is probably doubled in the particular case of this worker'.[13]
3.19
Dr Paterson advised the committee that ANSTO was working with ARPANSA to
see if the quality control test could be eliminated from their procedures in
order to avoid this type of incident in the future.
Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
3.20
CSIRO's CEO, Dr Larry Marshall gave a brief opening statement to the
committee, highlighting some of CSIRO's current work, including its Strategy
2020, collaborative research infrastructure, the agency's Innovation Fund, and
'Coviu'––a cloud-based healthcare and diagnosis tool targeted at rural
Australians.[14]
3.21
The committee asked officers from CSIRO about work the agency is
undertaking in the 'gene drive' field, in particular about the project called Genetic
Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents (GBIRd) which looks at gene drive mice.[15]
3.22
CSIRO officers confirmed that the agency had received a grant of
$100,000 from a United States government agency and university to complete this
work:
...this is a multicountry, multiparty collaboration,
predominantly located in the US. I would not want to lead you to believe that
CSIRO is a spokesperson and able to give you the full details of that. I'm very
happy to be transparent about what we know.[16]
Lithium batteries
3.23
The committee sought information about CSIRO's work with lithium
batteries. Officers noted the spodumene[17] deposits in Western Australia, and the evolving technologies looking to capture
its potential:
...we have done research around novel lithium chemistries, so
new chemistries involving sulphur and oxygen, which is probably the next
generation of batteries, but we haven't had any great success. That effort has
probably been wound back. We have done some work with batteries with regard to
military applications.
[...]
Most of our work these days is more about how you integrate
these batteries into energy systems. That's where our efforts are primarily [18]
3.24
Officers from CSIRO also noted some of the difficulties in working with
lithium batteries, particularly, that some of the electrolytes used in the
fabrication are flammable. The committee noted that this was a factor in the
recent Samsung battery issue.[19]
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science—Programme 2
Radioactive Waste Management
3.25
The committee asked officers from the Department to outline what
consultation had taken place with local government and councils in relation to
the establishment of a radioactive waste management facility. Officers
explained:
There was extensive consultation with the councils all the
way through this process, with the Flinders Ranges Council, the Outback
Communities Authority—the Outback Communities Authority is not a council; it's
actually a South Australian government body—and the Kimba Council. We were
discussing with them the broad process, and they were well aware that the
intention was subject to their agreement to move to a ballot. We had been
talking to them about the possibility of a ballot later that year. The minister
did make his intention known publicly, that he was keen to have a vote starting
around 20 August. We subsequently negotiated with the councils their agreement
to that and how that ballot would be conducted.[20]
3.26
Officers also noted that councils will commission the Australian
Electoral Commission to conduct a ballot on their behalf to assess community
support for hosting the facility in their local area.
3.27
The committee also enquired about the recent increase––from 15 to 45––in
the number of jobs expected to be created if a radioactive waste management
facility is established. Officers noted that the number had increased as the
state of the project evolved:
When we first went out to the communities in 2015 with our
current process, we were asked about the number of jobs that would be at the
facility. At that point, the government had indicated its preference to
co-locate an intermediate waste facility, but it hadn't made a final decision.
We then wanted to be conservative and not be accused of overegging it, so we
took that 30 and we looked at just what were the core waste management jobs
associated with low-level waste in a facility. That's where the 15 came from.[21]
3.28
Officers also advised that the Department had consulted with the ENRESA (Empresa
Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos) in Spain and ONDRA (the Belgian radioactive
waste management facility) facilities to ensure a consistent approach. The two
facilities provided a jobs map of 45 jobs that they believed the facility would
require, including security, administration and community outreach, increasing
the total number from 15 to 45 jobs.
Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)
3.29
AIMS's CEO, Dr Paul Hardisty, made a brief opening statement
highlighting some of the agency's recent work on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), including
monitoring of the reef's health, new coastal research vessels, the National Sea
Simulator and the production of quality research papers.[22]
3.30
In monitoring the GBR, Dr Hardisty noted that the research indicates it
'continues to experience severe stress, and all regions of the GBR now show
declining coral cover'.[23]
3.31
The committee asked AIMS about the Reef Restoration and Adaptation
Package (the package) announced on 22 January 2018. Dr Hardisty noted that the
$60 million package was announced at AIMS's headquarters in Townsville, and
that
$6 million of that amount would go towards developing a concept feasibility
study and designing a comprehensive reef restoration and adaptation R&D
program.[24]
3.32
The committee also discussed the government's recent announcement of
$500 million to help restore and protect the reef. Dr Hardisty told the
committee he was confident AIMS would play a key role in the use of the
funding, noting in particular the $100 million set aside specifically for reef
science.[25] Dr Hardisty pointed out AIMS' particular expertise in reef science:
If you go by the peer-viewed publication indices and our
impact through journals and so on, we are ranked No. 1 in the nation in that
particular area that I mentioned in my opening statement, and No. 2 in the
world, so we're hitting a pretty high mark globally for an Australian
institution. We're very proud of that, but there is no room for complacency. We
have incredibly deep capability in that area.[26]
3.33
The committee also asked AIMS officers about the National Sea Simulator
(SeaSim). The SeaSim is a world-class marine research aquarium facility for
tropical marine organisms in which scientists can conduct cutting-edge research
not previously possible in Australia.[27]
3.34
Officers from AIMS noted that the SeaSim was opened in 2012 and has a
25-year life span. They explained that the SeaSim research could relate to future
climate conditions, ecotoxicology, sedimentation, dredging programs and more.
By allowing researchers to replicate conditions and circumstances, which are
either occurring now or might occur into the future, the SeaSim helps
researchers understand how organisms respond and how one might best manage them.
Officers gave the following example of the SeaSim's capability:
A good example of that would be work we've been doing in the
space of dredging research, where through experiments in that system we have
been able to come up with new guidelines—for example, for dredging for some of
the Western Australian programs that are going on—where the company is actually
saving multiple millions of dollars per year and we're achieving a better environmental
outcome, so there's an absolute improvement in outcome. That's a typical
application of the facility.[28]
3.35
The committee noted that the $500 million funding announcement included
an amount for the SeaSim. Officers from AIMS explained that this would be used
for upgrades on the SeaSim, as well as potentially opening up its use to third
parties.[29]
Other topics raised
3.36
The committee discussed a wide range of topics during the two days of hearings
with the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio. The above reporting of
discussions is not complete. Other topics discussed by the committee included:
- Artificial intelligence development––budget measure
-
Air travel by departmental officers
- R&D tax incentive
-
Electric and autonomous vehicles
- Growth centres
- Centre for accelerator science
- Research Vessel Investigator
- Cooperative Research Centre monitoring program
- Automotive Transformation Scheme
- Advanced Manufacturing Fund
-
Space agency
- US tariffs on steel and aluminium
- Radioactive Waste Management
-
Industrial relations at Tidbinbilla
-
Australian gas crisis
-
Retention lease on the North-West Shelf
-
Road infrastructure in Northern Australia
- Claremont beef processing facility
-
Commercial in confidence processes
- Australian Maritime Safety Authority (Memorandum of Understanding
with the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority
-
Mineral exploration investment
- Reef restoration and adaptation program announcement
- Australian Building Codes Board
Senator Jane
Hume
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page