A NATIONAL POLICY FOR SCIENCE

ADDRESS TO BE DELIVERED BY THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, NR WHITLA IN OPENING THE SYMPOSIUM OF THE N.S.W. DIVISION OF THE AUSi71I 'AND NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF N.S.W., SYDNEY — 11 SEPTEMBER 1969

I hope that you will not take it &miss if in opening this

symposium I express my satisfaction at the fact that the Australian

Labor Party has been the first Australian party to recognise the need

for a comprehensive national approach to science. I hope-that I may

acknowledge the debt my party owes to innumerable scientists and

technologists who have helped prepare the proposals I will put before

you tonight. I hope that I may acknowledge in particular our debt to

my colleague the Shadow Minister for Education and Science, Senator

Cohen, and to Dr Keith Crook of the Australian National University

who has been a most active member of our Science Policy Committee

and who will take science policy to the hustings as our candidate

for Bradfield.

RELEVANCE OF A SCIENCE POLICY

Australians must learn to see science in relation to the whole

range of our nation's activities. Australia's future growth depends

on the way we develop our human and natural resources and the extent

to which we can promote a favourable level of trade and maintain our

national security. Science and technology are the means we use to

transform human and physical resources into materials for internal

growth, raise living standards and promote trade. Science and

technology are basic to our national security and this goes further

than the contribution their application makes to our means of

physical defence.

a

2.

! 'f

he natural sciences may contribute significantly to our ability

to give aid abroad; the social sciences can contribute greatly to a

better understanding of the world we live in, the social, economic

and political problems of our neighbours, and the complexities of

the international system within which we must operate and operate

successfull y  if we are to survive and prosper. 'r'nus science

technology are equally important to us at home and abroad. They can

be so developed as to enable us to make the most of our human and

material resources for maximum benefit, nationally and internationally.

We can only achieve this through a properly formulated national science

policy. It is not enough to hope, as does the present government, that

these general ends can be served and general purposes fulfilled by

leaving science to the scientists and policy to the politicians.

Scientists must be involved in policy formulation if the objectives

of a science policy are to be meaningful. But there is another reason

for involving scientists : to be successful any policy must have a

clear appreciation of the way in which scientists work. As we shall

see; the government's ad hoc approach has in certain areas failed

lamentably in this regard.

THE GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

In fact the present government has no science policy. Certainly

it provides financial support for science and technology and this

presumably implies certain expectations about the roles and benefits

of science and technology in our society. However, these expectations

are either not made explicit, or where explicit are framed in very

general terms, and this materially influences the effectiveness of the

financial support provided, for example, in industrial research and

development. .

t

}

3.

The government has rejected a suggestion from the Science and Industry

Forum that it establish a Science Advisory Council to assist with

policy formulation. In the words of the Minister for Education and }

Science, a pattern of "informal and ad_hoc relationships" is preferred.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the government's approach to }

science and technology is patchy, incoherent and unco—ordinated.

This is well shown by the neglect of areas such as marine science,

the widely scattered ministerial responsibility for various aspects

of science and technology and the wide variation in both the ^.

organisational structures under which research is carried out and

in the morale and effectiveness achieved.

A pattern of financial support coupled with largely unformulated

expectations is no substitute for a science policy. For the needs of

science and technology and the needs of Australia to be seen in proper

conjunction a properly formulated science policy is required. Only

in this way can the community expect to receive maximum value,

construed in its broadest sense, for money spent in this field.

The government's attitude towards science is exemplified by

the fact that the Ministry for Education and Science has now been in

existence for 3 years but so far, despite continued probing in the

Senate, there have been no pronouncements on how the department is

to be used to lay the foundations for a'genuine policy. In fact the

only pronouncement of note has been that the government prefers

"informal and ad hoc relationships" when seeking guidance on policy,

and that the department is undertaking a survey (Project SCORE) to

determine the present pattern of research activity in Australia.

This survey is proceeding slowly.

"' mss.     - 	1, r'

- .-r- - _ _ _- - _ - -. "a', S'9`ara'^lre..l..AÃ¢ÂÂ¢ r -er"?[TÂ¢fl!s^ s.^ .. - _'Ã¢ÂÂ¢`^"'.^' r^E'R r^

F

e

4.

33UREAUCR .ACY AND SCIENCE .;

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth is employing an increasing c^

number of scientists and technologists in various departments, E^

but with one outstanding exception — the C.S.I.R.O. — the

scientific sections of the departments are becoming over—bureaucratised }

with consequent loss of morale and effectiveness.

t

Three years  years ago, in a debate in which. the low level of morale

and effectiveness of the Aeronautical Research Laboratories was

raised, the Minister responsible for the laboratories, Senator Henty,

said :

"I do not know how it would be possible to operate a government industry or a government department outside the Public Service Board".

The Minister was presumably unaware that the most successful research

organisation we possess, the C.S.I.R.O., does precisely that. The

contrast in morale between C.S.I.R.O. and the Aeronautical Research

Laboratories is most marked. The fact is that the Public Service

Board is not equipped, and indeed recognises that it is not equipped,

to control-high—level research activities. Not only, as the C.S.I.R.O.

shows, is it possible to operate these activities outside the Public

Service Board; it is essential that they be so operated. Failure

in this respect produces the declining morale and rapid staff

turnover which has characterised in recent years the Bureau of

Mineral Resources. The Bureau and other research agencies such as

the Atomic Energy Commission should be freed from the crippling

restraints of bureaucratic administration. The men who staff them

are not, after all, in the immortal appelation bestowed on them by

the Minister for National Development, Mr Fairbairn, "just like

jackaroos".

F ^ '

_  ii

5.

E +

The Public Service Board subjects scientific work of the

Bureau of Mineral Resources to the supervision of administrators

who are not themselves scientists and have little appreciation of

the issues involved. It spins a web of regulations which, while

perhaps necessary in the case of clerical and administrative

activity, are clearly inappropriate to scientific inquiry, and

certainly are not to be found within the C.S.I.R.O. It imposes upon

the Bureau a heirarchical structure akin to that of other government

departments, in which the number of positions available decreases

sharply upwards from a broad base, and promotion accordingly is

dependent not upon merit but upon the availability of vacancies.

In these circumstances, it is,not surprising that the Bureau has a

rate of staff turnover among scientific personnel which is a source

of grave concern if not to the government then to Australians with

a more - highly-develop ed  sense of responsibility towards the exploitation of the nation's resources. The Bureau is now at least

20% short of its approved scientific strength;, 80% of its

scientists have been replaced at some time during the last 8 years,

with a reduction in the available fund of scientific experience by

50%. This is a most damning indictment of the way in which the

government uses the scientific capacity of the public sector, and i

a most alarming index of the government's competence in the whole

field of resource development. .-

L

N

im

E ^^

0

OI

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

I!



Nor does the government show any greater zeal or

competence in promoting scientific activity within the private

sector. The seriousness with which the government takes the

Industrial Research and Development Grants Act may be gauged ;-from its decision to make grants under the Act taxable, thus

recovering in company tax $1.8 million of its $4 million

appropriation for 1968-69 and reducing its. net  commitment for

industrial research and development to $2.2 million.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that even this sum will

be spent for the benefit of Australian industry. Late last year

I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr McEwen, a series

of questions aimed at determining how many Australian and foreign-

owned firms had, in the 1960s, established, closed down or  transferred

overseas their research and development sections. I also asked how

.many of the companies being assisted under the Act were foreign-controlled. I was told that the information I sought was not

available, and that the degree of foreign shareholding was not a

factor determining eligibility for support under the Act.

These are matters of more than academic interest. In 1967,

control of Monsanto Chemicals Australia Ltd. passed to the Monsanto

Company of America, and the Australian company's research laboratory

was promptly closed down; in 1968, the American-based Parke Davis

Company closed down at short notice its Australian research section

despite the fact that the section had just perfected a new group

of chemical agents highly effective against liverfluke in sheep

and now earning the company about $177,000 a month.

Fj E.

I

7.

varzi  --_: an electronics enterprise, took over

in 1967 Techtron Pty. Ltd., the Melbourne firm which pioneered

commercial development of atomic absorption spectrophotometry

techniques developed in the laboratories of the C.S.I.R.O. and

by 1966 had annual earnings of some S2 million of which half was

drawn from export markets. Perkin Elmer Pty. Ltd. of the U.S.

undertook to produce in Australia a mass spectrometer leak—detector

designed by scientists in the C.S.l.R.O. Division of Chemical

Physics, but in 1967 closed down their Australian plant.

Australian scientists are rightly concerned at the ease with

which small Australian companies profiting from the results of

indigenous research are allowed to fall a prey to foreign takeovers,

at the frequency with which a foreign takeover is followed by the

closing down of research and development facilities in this country

and at the extent to which basic insights gained through research in

Australia are passed for development to the home countries of the

companies concerned. Industrialists increasingly are disturbed by

the government's apparent failure to make its grants conditional

upon the products of research being free of franchise restrictions

which might limit their export potential and free of any blanket

agreement which might lead to their being made available overseas

without the payment of appropriate license fees.

9

{ r l_ '

8.

The Industrial Research and Development Grants Act has

been aptly stigmatised by Professor J. A. Allen of the Department

of Chemistry at Newcastle University as

"..., an appropriate result of the interests of groups favouring a system of grants, the over-simplified decision-making approach that tends to substitute a three percent of gross national product for a proper understanding of the

processes by which technological changes are generated and absorbed into the economy and society, and the 'growth mania' that dominates so much economic thought today".

It is an Act introduced without a prior survey of need, and under

which, in consequence, money is disbursed without a proper under-

standing of the problems that have to be overcome : for although

we know that the level of industrial research and development in

the private sector is low, we do not know why this is so, nor what

the present pattern of activity is, nor which areas could benefit

most quickly from financial support.

It is, furthermore, an Act under which grants were provided

for Perkin Elmer in the year in which its Australian operations were

closed down and for Varian-Techtron in the first year of its American

proprietorship; an Act which seems likely to enhance the monopolistic

0 and quasi-monopolistic position of certain big firms while not

seriously stimulating industrial research and development where it is

most needed, at the grass-roots in Australian-owned industry; and

which in the case of foreign controlled firms merely subsidises the

acquisition of knowledge and know-how for affiliates overseas to

use in competition against the products of Australian industry.

Above all, it is an Act which lays bare the hypocrisy of the

government's professed concern for Australian science.

-.  ' r^ F^ . T y: ; '1`^'-'" _.'".r'E^'.!!.4= ^;' ,'x f ^.^=+aq$r; f.!^!T '^.'!W^. r s J :.  ",.^- , -

9P

MARINE SCIENCE

This lack of real concern is apparent too in the

government's attitude towards fields of scientific endeavour in

which the prospects ofeconomic advantage are less obvious or less

immediate. It is apparent in particular in the government's approach

to the whole field of marine science. Australians inhabit the world's

largest island. We are the nominal proprietors of a vast continental

shelf teeming with resources which we have barely begun to catalogue

or to exploit. Yet our prospects of retaining these great assets are

clouded both by competition from powers such as Japan and the Soviet

Union, which already have spent far more on research into Australia's

marine resources than has been spent by the Australian government,

and by the danger that we will destroy through ignorance the natural

balance on which renewable resources such as fish and the marine

growths which are their food depend.

Queensland's Great Barrier Reefs are Australia's greatest

tourist attraction, each year drawing 250,000 visitors and earning

$50 million. The Reefs-are an area of major scientific importance,

containing an assemblage of marine organisms denser than that of

any comparable area in the world, and the largest assemblage of

coral in existence. They are an area rich in lime and silica and

of high potential for oil production. Their flora and fauna

constitute enormous reserves of protein which some day may be

tapped to feed a hungry world. All this great natural wealth is

at present endangered by the government's long-standing failure to

support an adequate programme of marine research. In the absence

of proper scientific information, attempts to exploit the resources

of the reefs threaten to prove not complementary but mutually

antagonistic,

r

^4

10.

The crown of thorns starfish has already destroyed up

in many coral x o c hard the of 90% to reefs inside the outer barrier

reef from north of Cooktown to Townsville - one-third of the

linear extent of the Great Barrier Reefs. This infestation is

thought to have come about in part as a result of intensive

collecting of the trumpet shellfish which are the only known

natural enemies of the crown of thorns. It will no doubt be

aggravated if the Queensland Government permits limestone to be

mined ' from the Elliston Reef -near 'Innisfai.l. Recent research at

the University of Guam suggests that the crown of thorns proliferates

in and around areas stripped by blasting or dredging. Over and

above the threat posed to the reef by the crown of thorns, however,

looms the threat posed by the existence of permits to drill for oil

imprudently granted by the Queensland Government and now recklessly

confirmed by the Commonwealth Government. The Prime Minister now

claims that he is opposed to drilling in the vicinity of the Reefs

and the Attorney-Gene ral  says that he will in future veto the issue

of permits, but these pieties do nothing to remove the existing

formidable risk. They do nothing whatsoever -to implement the

proposal for a moratorium on oil drilling in the region of the.

Reefs made 4 months ago by the Chief Justice of the High Court,

Sir Garfield Barwick, in his capacity as President of the

Australian Conservation Foundation. They do nothing to implement

the Chief Justice's plea for a joint Commonwealth-Queensland

commission on the development and conservation of the Reefs.

ki

H ,.

-^____  r

tv

0

U

11.

Proposals for limestone mining on the Reefs could not

have been considered seriously by any government, the issue of

permits to drill for oil could not have been contemplated and

systematic looting-of shellfish could not have been allowed to

reach its present disastrous extent if proper research had been

carried out into the ecological balance of the area's marine life.

Had proper research been undertaken, there could be no room for

dissention or debate on the warning of the Queensland Littoral

Society that

"Unless a plan for the controlled exploitation and conservation of the Great Barrier Reefs is formulated in the near future, major clashes of interests among the various parties who wish to exploit the Reefs will occur. Also, major clashes of interests will occur between the exploi'ers on one hand and conservationists and scientific organisations on the other. Moreover, unless exploitation of the Reefs is rigidly controlled and policed the fauna and flora of many of the islands and coral reefs in the area, particularly the fauna and flora of the more accessible islands and reefs, will be adversely affected. Action is required now."

LIBERAL APPROACH TO CONSERVATION

Australians who are at heart conservationists should not

allow themselves to be fobbed off with Liberal prevarication or

procrastination. Liberals always endeavour to avert or postpone

expenditure on matters in which they have no real interest by

presenting them in public as matters of dispute between the

Commonwealth and the States. When the last surviving crown of thorns

starfish has devoured the last millimetre of living coral and itself

succumbed to the latest. oil slick, then and only then would a

Mr Gorton oAA a Mr Chalk announce that they had reached agreement ti  on the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef,

R

12.

When the last tree has fallen in Victoria's Little Desert and

the last of the area's 600 species of native plants, 140 species

of birds, 19 native mammals and 24 reptiles have finally been

eliminated, a Mr Gorton and a Sir Henry Bolte would announce joint

Commonwealth-State measures for conservation in the area. When

no more kangaroos remain to be slaughtered in N.S.W., a Mr Fraser

and a Mr Lewis would discover that their recent differences of

opinion had been of a purely semantic nature. Liberals are always

conservationists after and not before the event. They arrive at.

the conclusion that conservation is desirable when nothing remains

to conserve or when the cost has clearly become too great to :i

contemplate.

RESEARCH GRANTS

The chaotic state of financing in other areas of research

is exemplified by the Mills Cross telescope project. The Mills Cross

radio telescope was established using a $US 1 million capital grant

from the United States National Science Foundation and a $A 200,000

grant from the Science Foundation for Physics at the University of

Sydney. Its annual running expenses hitherto have been shared by the

A.R.G.C., which contributes $A 25,000, the N.S.F., which contributes

SA 45,000, and the University of Sydney, which pays the salaries of

about half the technicians employed on the project, but the N.S.F.

has announced that, owing to the cutback in U.S. defence spending,

its contributions must now cease. Accordingly, if the telescope is

to be kept operating, a further $45,000 must be obtained each year

from Australian sources. .

ee,^

13.

So long as the government persists with its present policy on

r--search grants, no university could hope to provide such a sum

for more than an. interim period. Yet if the A.R.G.C. assumes

responsibility for Mills Cross and also for other major continuing

research projects, its total budget will soon be tied.up in such

projects. This will vitiate one of the basic objectives for which

the A.R.G.C. was established - namely, the support of individual

new research projects judged to be of considerable merit. Only

when the A.R.G.-C. is transformed into a National Science Foundation

which can support both short-term and continuing research projects

will problems of this sort be overcome.

0

These examples of the government's performance could be

supplemented by many others in the same vein. I have discussed them

at some length because all Austtalians should be aware of the

situation that they exemplify. The plain fact is that in matters of

science the government is incompetent. It is neither capable of

understanding nor does it wish to understand the nature of the

scientific and technological revolution in which we are involved,

and the immediate and longer-term needs that must be faced if the

revolution is to be properly managed. That these needs must be met

if Australia is to have some degree of control over its own future,

and Australians are to avoid living in a despoiled continent, is

apparent, if not to the government, then to many scientists and

technologists. The feeling of frustration that is widespread among

scientists and technologists stems from this failure of the government

to see the problem, seek advice, or. act on it when it is given.

f ,.

14. - .;I

LABOR'S SCIENCE POLICY 1

It was recognition of these problems that led the A.L.P., in 1965, to include a science policy in its platform. In

formulating this policy advice was sought, and was forthcoming,

from many scientists and technologists throughout Australia. The

A.L.P. is still the only political party in Australia to have a

science policy in its platform.

In formulating, elaborating and implementing its science

policy, the A.L.P. has paid and will pay careful attention to a

number of general guiding principles. The A.L.P. recognises that

the spirit of science is essentially non-bureaucratic. Science

relies greatly on individual judgement and on the guidance of the

man in the laboratory if worthwhile ends are to be achieved.

Furthermore, it is a notable and not irrelevant fact that science is

not a gerontocracy; it is commonly the younger scientists who make

the new discoveries.

A nice judgement must be exercised about the size limits

within which research organisations are likely to be most effective.

If they are too small there will not be enough cross-fertilisation

of minds for them to be truly effective. On the other hand, if they

are too large they will run the risk of becoming over-administered,

a self-expanding bureaucracy. Clearly, the best size for a research

organisation or project will vary with the kind of work in hand.

0

H

.

4.i

15.

Equally, policy-makers must exercise a'subtle judgement

in tho matter of financial control. Although a blind willingness

to finance everything that scientists might wish to do must be

avoided, there is a need to realise that once a programme has been

agreed upon and initiated, the results achieved are likely to be

better if scientists do not have to spend time unduly adapting

their programmes to tightly trimmed budgets. There is a triennial

programme for universities; why not for science?

AIMS OF A SCIENCE POLICY

Bearing these points in mind we can now consider what should

be the basic aims of national science policy. First , and foremost,

such a policy should be aimed at guidance and management rather than

direction and control. Second , it must envisage means by which the

government can obtain guidance for the continuing formulation of

science policy and can also obtain appropriate , scientific advice

as an integral part of the processes of general policy formulation.

Third , the policy must aim at getting value for money spent. We

must here be careful to define value in a fairly broad sense.

Strict cost/benefit analysis is inappropriate to research activity

if only because the ostensibly useless research results of today

may turn out to be the basis of a major breakthrough tomorrow.

Fourth , the policy would need to ascertain the order of priorities

to be afforded the major areas of research. It would closely examine

the question of specialisation in those areas of science where

research can most truthfully be followed. Small countries such as

Holland, Sweden and Switzerland show the benefits of scientific

and industrial specialisation.

U

16.

I

Fifth , a policy should assist to maintain and improve the effectiveness of scientific activity by minimising unwarranted

duplication and by providing facilities for more rapid application

of discoveries. Sixth , the policy should aim to deploy available

scientific and technological resources so as to bring about planned

innovation. Although the nature of a scientific breakthrough cannot

be firmly predicted, competent scientists can often give a fairly,

clear indication of areas in which breakthroughs may occur if

adequate finance and efforts are applied. In addition, deployment

must take account of the possibility of "surprise" - the unexpected

scientific discovery that is of relevance to a large number of

disciplines, an example of which is the laser.

If these are some of the aims, what then should some of the

methods of national science policy be? Given the nature of. science

and scientists, it is important that work should not be channelled

through a bureaucracy. The concept of a massive department of

scientists and technologists is inappropriate ; to the nature and traditions of western science and inappropriate to the nature and

traditions of democracy.

MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

First, there should be a Minister for Science and Technology.

Not only would this be a new portfolio, but I believe it would involve

a new concept in ministerial practice. A Minister for Science and

Technology would not be conceived as being directly responsible for

the activities embraced within his portfolio in precisely the same way

as, say, the Postmaster-General or Minister for Social Services

are regarded.

I t i

17.

I

irY

Responsibility in the traditional sense implies direction by the

Ui ii ;ter. for the framing and implementation of the policies to be

administered by his departmental officers. This is not an

appropriate role for a Minister for Science. His role would be to

facilitate, rather than to direct; to act as a channel of

communication between the Cabinet and scientists, and between

scientists and the Cabinet; to give an overall coherence to science

policy, to see that a proper connexion was maintained between

scientific and broader political considerations in its formulation.

Together with an Australian Science Council he would formulate policy

recommendations for submission to Cabinet, and would seek, through

the operational arm of his portfolio - C.S.I.R.O. and comparable

organisations -- and to some extent through the Australian Science

Council, the implementation of policy.

Any government concerned with science policy requires expert

assistance. The arrangements used by governments overseas to equip

themselves with expert advice and guidance on science policy are

many and varied, and there is clearly no consensus as to which

pattern is the most desirable. In Australia there is a similar lack

of consensus, and the arrangements initially adopted by a Labor

Government will necessarily be experimental in character, as indeed

befits a field in which the cardinal virtue is empiricism. We are

fortunate, however, in possessing in the C.S.I.R.O. an organisational

pattern for conducting government-sponsored scientific and

industrial research which is regarded both nationally and

y internationally as close to ideal.

El

18.

The C.S.I.R.O. acquired its structure as a result of a judicious

blending of overseas advice and experience with local insight.

Our success in this area gives grounds for hoping that a

= similar approach to the problem of providing for formulation of

science policywill produce an equally happy result. It is against

this background that the A.L.P. platform proposes the establishment

of an Australian Science Council.

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE COUNCIL

This Australian Science Council would be an executive and

policy-formulating body responsible to the Minister, rather than an

advisory body. It would have a permanent secretariat and a

rotating membership consisting of persons drawn from the C.S.I.R.O.,

the Atomic Energy Commission and such other civil science and

technological instrumentalities as might be established by a Labor

Government, together with persons drawn from industry, universities

and independent research institutes. We envisage that these

non-governmental representatives would be elected by and from the

professional scientists in each principal field of the physical,

social and applied sciences. All would holc!,office for three year

periods, and a proportion would be full-time members. We envisage

also thatthere would be several continuing sub-committees of the

Council, one for each major field of physical, social and applied

science, e.g., biological sciences, behavioural sciences. The

members of these committees would be elected by. and from the

appropriate group of professional scientists.

- ..-, .. -,. _. . -.a ,_. .-Ã¢ÂÂ¢^:'Â°_, rte

19.

This Council would be the central element in the "policy"

arm of the Minister's portfolio, but would not concern itself

with the internal policy of "operational" organisations such as

C.S.I.R.O., which would remain, as now, directly responsible to.

the Minister.

Insofar as implementation of policy were to be effected by

research within the sphere of government-sponsored scientific

activity, this would be carried out by the "operational"

organisations in the same way as at present. Where, however, policy

was to be implemented through privately-sponsored organisations --

universities, independent research organisations, etc. - funds

would be channelled to such organisations through the Council, by

way of a National Science Foundation and the Industrial Research

and Development Grants Board, which would be responsible to the

Minister through the Council.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION .

Reasonable freedom from detailed financial control combined

with reasonable supervision of spending should be established by

setting up an independent National Science Foundation. Australia

has great need for a foundation that will grant funds for research

to individual scientists and technologists and teams of scientists

and technologists in universities, research institutes and industry.

This should be additional to funds made available to government

instrumentalities, to public corporations such as C.S.I.R.O. and

to universities.

0

e

0

20.

The Federal Government has deferred, if not rejected, the proposals

for a National Research Foundation made to the Prime Minister years

ago by the Academy-of Science and again in September 1964 by the

Martin Committee. In establishing such a foundation, we would need

again to take care that we were not establishing a new form of

bureaucracy, itself absorbing much of the money meant for the broad

support of research. Its proper role will be to help fill the gaps

in the nation's overall research and development programme, to lend

support to unproven but potentially promising lines of research

and to support continuous research programmes of proven merit.

The Australian Research Grants Committee Could provide a framework

for a National Science Foundation, although it is only a shadow of

what is really required.

As will be apparent from my criticism of the government's

performance, Labor envisages that there will be substantial

organisational changes in those areas of governmental scientific

activity that are now conducted under the aegis of the Public

Service Board. Instrumentalities such as the A.A.E.C., the

scientific branches of the B.M.R. and the Forestry Research

Institute will be restructured along the lines of C.S.I.R.0. outside

of the Public Service. Indeed, it may be appropriate to incorporate

some, at least, of these instrumentalities into C.S.I.R.O. as new

divisions while preserving, and indeed enlarging, the traditional

autonomy of that organisation. This would certainly require an

enlargement of the C.S.I.R.O. Executive, aria probably some internal

segmentation of C`.S.I.R.O. into groups of divisions as well. It would

require a less negative attitude on the part of the Public Service

Board towards initiatives on salaries taken by the C.S.I.R.O.

Executive.

a

21.

PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

If we accept that the nature of science and the nature

of an effective Ministry of Science and Technology require that

traditional concepts of direct minis-Eerial responsibility and

control be in some measure abridged, we are confronted with the

need for ensuring democratic responsibility and control by other

means. The parliamentary committee system would appear to offer

the most fruitful avenue for examination in this regard. The

A.L.P. platform provided for the establishment of a Parliamentary

Standing Committee on Science and Technology with full powers to

inquire and be advised on the whole range Ã¢ÂÂ¢-of science policy and

science activity. In the United Kingdom,-a Parliamentary Committee

on Science and T echnology has already been established.

The Committee we envisage would receive annual reports

from the various bodies linked to the Ministry, and from the other

government departments with scientific, research and development

establishments .. It would call scientists to present their opinions

and keep up a constant communication with; cientific institutions

receiving government grants and with theMinister and his officers

for scrutiny of his general policy decisions and directions. In

this way we could ensure a better mutualtunderstanding between

politicians and scientists. We would avoid the dangers of over

administration and the dangers of scientific isolationism.

Politicians, and consequently the public, would be better informed

about where science was moving, what scientists were attempting,

ti  and what the needs and problems of science and scientists were.

I-

.

I I

1

r

22.

Similarly, scientists would better appreciate the needs and

prob l ems of politicians and the relationship between their private

e:ndeeavour.s and the public welfare.

The Parliamentary Committee may be thought of as a "watch-dog" representing the interests of the community. A "watch-dog"

representing the interests of science is also needed, and this

role can be filled appropriately by the Australian Academy of Science.

AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE :'

As an organisation, the Academy should have no executive

responsibilities in the formulation or implementation of government

policy, and its existing executive responsibilities for the

international aspects of Australian science should be transferred

to the Australian Science Council. The Academy should be an

independent body, concerned pre-eminently :with maintenance of the

excellence of Australian science. It should be ready to initiate,

promote or criticise actions so as to maintain or enhance that

excellence.

CONSERVATION

Let me refer in conclusion and by'iway of illustration of

the role of science in our national affairs' to conservation policy.

The advance of agricultural pursuits and the expansion of cities

and their industries have been the cause'of' 'much of the natural

habitat of Australia's native flora and fauna being severely

reduced and in some cases lost completely'.,'.

0

It is now clear from an

a

bundance of overseas e xperience that

urban man is diminished by any final severance of his links with

nature and the co untryside, and we should be appalled by the

prospect that such a severance may ultimately come about in our

own domain of great open spaces, scenic grandeur and abundant

wild life. We cannot , safely assume that, our cities

occupy less than one half of one per cent"of Au stralia's area,

the r emaining 99.5% of that area can be left to look after itself.

We should not suppose that the natural e nvironment of our ancient

continent is so tough or so resilient as to withstand without harm

the insults and injuries inflicted by its thoughtless

inh

abitants. We should not suppose tha t, 1 iecause our unique

flora and fauna have outlasted a variety ',o ' predators in the course

of their cloistered evolution,

predatory a ctivities of man'.

The D epartment of Urban Affairs which will be established by a Labor G overnment will carry out as a ,matter of urgency asurvey of the A ustralian countryside designed to i dentify areas'suitable for the expansion of existing cities or the establishmentof new regional centres, areas to which mineral deposits, waterresources or soil fertility impart a special economic significanceand areas which should be preserved for thozr natural beauty,historic associations or scientific interest. Thypass on the results of its survey to planning authorities throughoutAustralia, and thereafter expect its categories and classificationsto be taken into con sideration in plans s ubmitted for Commonwealthappraisal.

23.

they w ill ralso survive unaided the

II

II

24.

It should be a condition of any Commonwealth grant for urban

dev'lopment: that proper regard is paid to the economic potential,

the scientific potential and the, recreation potential of areas

for which assistance is sought. The Commonwealth should see

itself as the curator and not the liquidator of the national estate.

Having integrated conservation policy within the overall

framework of urban and regional planning, a Labor government would

provide increased funds for research into the preservation of

Australia's flora and fauna, through th'e;C.S.I.R.O. and through

other research agencies. It would actively sponsor in conjunction

with State governments and local authorities the establishment of

a nation-wide system of national parks and wild life reserves.

It would co-operate with the Commonwealth and State departments of

education, the Australian U niversities Commission and the

Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education in the

establishment of field study centres. It would establish a

National Institute of Oceanography to further develop this crucial

but neglected area of national scientific activity.

Matters on which I have dwelt tonight and countless other

aspects of scientific endeavour which I Piave been obliged by lack

of time to ignore entirely represent great undertakings for a

nation of our size, population and resources. They are undertakings

not to be brought to fruition overnight, or indeed within the

lifetime of a single parliament. The important t hing is that we should make a start now, that we should begin 'planning, for the revolution that is already well under way.

^ i

j

^ J

4. I

r^

25.

Progressive communities, as opposed to decadent communities, are

characterised by the degree to which they can adopt, absorb and

control the dynamic forces of their age. Science and technology

are the dynamic force of our age.. We may try to ignore them or

resist them; either would be equally futile; or we can accept

them and adapt them to our community and human needs, with every

chance of carrying the revolution they are making to a successful,

even a triumphant, conclusion judged by either the objective

standards of scientific truth, or the human standards of happiness

and justice.

