Chapter 3
Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio
3.1
This chapter summarises certain key areas of interest raised during the
committee's consideration of additional estimates for the 2016–17 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 2 March 2017, the committee heard evidence from Senator the Hon Arthur
Sinodinos, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, and Senator the Hon
Matthew Canavan, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, along with
officers from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the
Department) and agencies including:
-
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation;
-
Anti-Dumping Commission;
-
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;
-
Office of Innovation and Science Australia;
-
Geoscience Australia; and
-
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority.
3.3
Senators present over the course of the day's hearing included Senator Hume
(Chair), Senator Ketter (Deputy Chair), Senators Bushby, Carr, Lines, Ludlam,
Ian Macdonald, McAllister, Smith, and Xenophon.
3.4
The committee altered the schedule on the day of the hearing, removing Programme
1 from the hearing schedule. The committee was satisfied that topics relating
to Programme 1 had been sufficiently discussed in the cross-portfolio session.
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
3.5
The committee opened its discussions with the Australian Nuclear Science
and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) by congratulating Dr Adi Paterson on the
renewal of his contract as Chief Executive Officer of the agency for a further five
years.[1]
3.6
The committee also sought information relating to the agency's statement
of expectations from the Minister, noting that the most recent statement was
issued by Minister Macfarlane three years ago. Dr Paterson informed the
committee that a new statement of expectations was currently being finalised.
Senator Sinodinos confirmed this information.[2]
Synchrotron
3.7
The committee then turned its attention to the financing of ANSTO's
synchrotron.[3]
ANSTO informed the committee that ANSTO had been working with a range of
stakeholders on this matter:
The evaluation of the seven beamlines which have been agreed
with the community is $114 million. We think that within that envelope,
depending on how technology is developed, we might be able to secure an eighth
beamline, so that is the quantum. The process, as you may recall, is that we
will go to the community for that funding—state governments, the New Zealand
government, universities, medical research institutes and publicly funded
research agencies.[4]
3.8
ANSTO noted that the full amount of funding would need to be secured by
July 2018, with $20 million of the final amount to be secured by the end of
June 2017. ANSTO confirmed that no part of the final amount had yet been
secured, however ASNTO officials were meeting with as number of universities in
order to shore up formal written commitments for funding.[5]
Anti-Dumping Commission
A4 copy paper
3.9
The committee questioned the Anti-Dumping Commission regarding the
awaited release of its report relating to the alleged dumping of A4 copy paper
in the Australian market from Brazil, China, Indonesia and Thailand. The
committee noted that the report was due to be presented on 20 February 2017,
but had been extended to 6 March 2017.[6]
3.10
The Commission explained that the investigation relating to the A4 copy
paper was one of the most complex investigations that the Commission had
undertaken, explaining that:
[T]he number of exporters and importers are many. It required
a very comprehensive analysis undertaken over the last 12 months in relation to
the alleged impact on Australian Paper at Maryvale, including extensive
visitation and assessment of their own data and also extensive overseas
verification of the data provided by exporters and traders in that regard.
3.11
The Commissioner confirmed that the final report would be released the
following week, in line with the extension granted.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Staffing
3.12
The committee discussed the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation's (CSIRO) current staffing levels and the changing makeup
of its workforce, noting that 'there is an extraordinary brain drain in public
science occurring at CSIRO at the moment'.[7]
3.13
CSIRO indicated that the voluntary separation rate for staff was
approximately 4.6 per cent, a figure CSIRO confirmed to be average over the
last ten years.
3.14
The committee noted that CSIRO had not completed its enterprise
agreement negotiations, meaning that CSIRO staff had not seen a pay increase
for three years. CSIRO commented on the bargaining process, indicating that:
It has definitely had an impact on the morale of staff. Staff
are talking about it more. But the message I would like to leave you and staff
with is we are back around the negotiating table now. There have been extensive
negotiations over the last fortnight. We believe we are making ground and we
have the best interests of staff at heart. We believe they deserve a pay rise
and they will get one as soon as we can get agreement with the unions. It takes
two people to negotiate and we are both doing that, in good spirit, at the
moment.[8]
3.15
CSIRO acknowledged that it had experienced a shift in its science
priorities, and that this had an impact on the number and type of staff it
employed. CSIRO also noted that the changes were in line with its Strategy
2020, which has specifically increased the funding of what it terms 'pure
science' or 'blue sky science'.[9]
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science—Programme 2
Northern Australia Infrastructure
Facility (NAIF)
3.16
The committee welcomed Ms Laurie Walker, the new Chief Executive Officer
of NAIF to her first appearance before the committee.
3.17
In her opening statement, Ms Walker presented the committee with an
overview of NIAF's role and current activities. The CEO described NAIF as a
'gap financier' and explained to the committee that its role is to finance
projects that would not attract commercial finance:
We have a mandate to put in what is called concessional
lending terms of tenor or interest rate where we are serviced in priority to
other lenders, but we have to put the minimum concessionality in.[10]
3.18
Ms Walker also provided the committee with a summary of NAIF's work
since its establishment in July 2016, noting that the agency had so far
received 100 enquiries from projects in a broad range of sectors. Of these 100
enquiries, four were in the due diligence stage, which involves a detailed
assessment of each proposal.
3.19
The committee requested information relating to the Adani rail proposal.
NAIF indicated that it was unable to provide any response to this request as
the information sought was of a commercial-in-confidence nature.[11]
3.20
The committee asked NAIF to provide, on notice, details of the
'specified potential harm to commercial interests' if the information being
sought by the committee was to be made public.[12]
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
Workplace health and safety
3.21
The committee discussed the workplace health and safety compliance of the
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority's (NOPSEMA)
operators and requested information relating to those operators that were
non-compliant. NOPSEMA noted that there are some instances where operators were
believed not to be acting in accordance with their safety obligations, and in
these circumstances NOPSEMA has issued recommendations or taken action to
ensure enforcement of the appropriate obligations.[13]
3.22
The committee asked NOPSEMA how their Offshore and Petroleum and
Greenhouse Gas Storage Act compared with the Workplace Health and Safety Act
and with related international legislation.
3.23
NOPSEMA responded that their own Act was consistent with the Workplace
Health and Safety Act, noting that the only two differences between them are
related to 'access to the workplace for the union representatives' and 'access
to the safety case for people who are not on the facilities'. In relation to
its legislation and how it compares internationally, NOPSEMA stated:
The legislation that we administer was introduced just over
10 years ago. It was modelled on the UK model of outcomes based regulation of
offshore oil and gas, which is also applied in other countries, like Norway and
Canada, which, along with Australia, are recognised as the world-leading
regulatory regimes for this. That has also been recognised through
international bodies such as the International Regulators' Forum, where there
are four members of the management committee, those countries being the United
States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Australia. So I think it is fair to say
that our regulatory regime is recognised globally as amongst the best in the
world. [14]
Other topics raised
3.24
The committee discussed a wide range of topics during the hearing with
the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio. The above reporting of
discussions is not complete. Other topics discussed by the committee included:
-
Remuneration arrangements for the portfolio's corporate
Commonwealth entities
-
Anti-Dumping Commission's implementation of new procurement rules
-
Economics References Committee's steel industry inquiry
-
Gas Industrial Social and Environmental Research Alliance
(GISERA)
-
Validity of records kept by NASA, the Bureau of Meteorology and
CSIRO
-
National Innovation and Science Agenda
-
Business plan for the Office of Innovation and Science Australia
-
Cooperative Research Centres
-
Gas resources in the Bass Strait
-
Resources in South Australia
-
Cost of cattle transportation in Queensland
-
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Board remunerations
-
Adani coal mine
Senator Jane
Hume
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page