|
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Australian Science, Technology and Engineering
Council Repeal Bill 1998
Date Introduced: 1 April 1998
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Industry, Science & Tourism
Commencement: Upon Royal Assent except as otherwise indicated.
To repeal the Australian Science, Technology and
Engineering Council Act 1978 and enact transitional arrangements to
allow the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council to wind
down.
Scientific and technological developments generally benefit society by,
among other things, generating economic growth, improving the health and
well-being of citizens, protecting the environment and the sustainable
use of natural resources and maintaining national security.(1)
The Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act 1978
(the Principal Act) established the Australian Science, Technology and
Engineering Council (the Council) to provide information and advice to
the Government on the advancement of, development and practical application
of scientific knowledge. The Council was not the only scientific advisory
body to the Government. Two other such science advisory bodies(2) are
the Prime Minister's Science, Technology and Engineering Council (PMSEC)
and the Coordination Committee on Science and Technology (CCST).
The Council's 1996-97 Annual Report claims that the Council's strengths
are that it has:
- Independence guaranteed by legislation;
- A broad science, technology and engineering perspective;
- A charter to take a long-term view;
- An ability to consult widely with community interests;
- An ability to balance conflicting views; and
- Advice that is independent of a vested interest.(3)
Following the June 1996 National Commission of Audit report, which commented
on gaps and overlaps in the fields of science and technology, the Chief
Scientist, Professor John Stocker, was (in February 1997) asked to undertake
a review of Commonwealth science and technology arrangements. The review
involved extensive consultation and considered some 95 submissions received
from individuals and representatives of major government departments and
agencies as well as from representatives of the science and technology
communities. The final report was entitled Priority Matters and
was tabled in June 1997. The report made 21 recommendations. These included
the better identification of national priorities for science and technology.
Of relevance to this Bill, the report Priority Matters recommended
that:
- The Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (ASTEC)
should become a standing committee of PMSEC, with the tasks of preparing
'key issues' papers and presentations for PMSEC, and undertaking the
consultation, information gathering and analysis necessary to provide
PMSEC with information and advice on national science and technology
priorities;
- ASTEC should be made up of the non-Ministerial members of PMSEC, and
should be Chaired by the Chief Scientist;
- ASTEC should remain a statutory body;
- National level priority identification for science and technology
should be undertaken by PMSEC supported by ASTEC and the CCST, with
the Chief Scientist taking the leading executive role; and
- As an initial task, ASTEC should develop the priority identification
framework and methods further, and propose an approach to PMSEC for
consideration.(4)
Priority Matters also identified a number of gaps and overlaps
in scientific disciplines. The report noted that because of 'our small
size compared with the world's research and technology effort, gaps in
Australia's coverage of research and technology are inevitable'.(5) Some
of the gaps identified in the report include Australia's management of
its extensive Exclusive Economic Zone; research in areas of soil conservation
and the general understanding of ecology and biodiversity; and in the
use of the CRC mechanism for 'public-good' research.(6)
The Government response noted that the Prime Minister had already announced
the establishment of a 'new high level advisory body, the Prime Minister's
Science, Engineering and Innovation Council' which will be 'the Government's
principal source of advice on issues in science, engineering and technology,
and relevant aspects of education and training.'(7) The Government response
did not accept the recommendation of Professor Stocker's report that ASTEC
remain a statutory body. The response noted that:
The Council will be a non-statutory body. The Government does not consider
it necessary for a body whose function is advisory to have a statutory
basis.(8)
There have also been calls, for example by Dr Peter Pockley, Science
Journalist, for a 'national voice for science which is broadly representative,
combined and truly independent of government.'(9)
Main Provisions
Item 1 of Schedule 1 repeals the Principal Act.
Item 2 provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the Principal
Act, the Council continues to exist after the date that Schedule 1 commences
(which is to be fixed by Proclamation) so that the Council can prepare
its final annual report for the period 1 July 1997 to the date that Schedule
1 commences.
The Principal Act provides (in section 6) that the Council must report
to the Minister on matters requested by the Minister but that they may
also report to the Minister on such matters relating to their functions
as they think fit. In the latter case, the Minister is entitled to keep
the report confidential and not table it (or table an edited version)
if the Minister is satisfied that it was a confidential communication
or that it is not in the national interest or will prejudice the security,
defence or international relations of Australia (or relations between
the Commonwealth and any State). These provisions are continued in Item
2.
Section 25 of the Principal Act protects members and staff of the Council
as well as people serving on committees assisting the Council or consultants
to the Council, as well as to officers or employees of Commonwealth authorities
that are performing services for the Council from being sued for acts
done in good faith for the purposes of the Principal Act. Item 3
provides for the continuation of such immunity after the repeal of the
Principal Act.
Section 26 of the Principal Act imposes secrecy requirements on members
and staff of the Council as well as people serving on committees assisting
the Council or consultants to the Council as well as to officers or employees
of Commonwealth authorities that are performing services for the Council.
The Principal Act does provide exceptions, such as when the documents
are required by a court. Item 4 maintains these secrecy requirements
and exceptions. So, for example, it is an offence (and continues to be
an offence under the Bill) to (without the permission of the Minister)
make a record of, divulge or otherwise communicate to any person information
acquired by reason of appointment under the Principal Act. Similarly it
continues to be an offence to produce or otherwise supply documents without
the permission of the Minister to a person outside the Council. The penalty
for breaching the secrecy requirements will be increased to 30 penalty
units. Under section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914, one penalty unit
is currently $110.00.
Endnotes
1. National Goals and Priority Setting by Government Science and Technology
Agencies, December 1994, Paper prepared for the Coordination Committee
on Science and Technology, 3.
2. Press Release of Mr Peter McGauran MP 24 June 1997.
3. Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Annual Report
1996-97, 1.
4. Priority Matters (June 1997) Report to the Minister for Science
and Technology on Arrangements for Commonwealth Science and Technology
by the Chief Scientist, Professor John Stocker, 2-3
5. Priority Matters (June 1997) Report to the Minister for Science
and Technology on Arrangements for Commonwealth Science and Technology
by the Chief Scientist, Professor John Stocker, 9.
6. Priority Matters (June 1997) Report to the Minister for Science
and Technology on Arrangements for Commonwealth Science and Technology
by the Chief Scientist, Professor John Stocker, 10.
7. Government Response to 'Priority Matters', Dept. of Industry Science
& Tourism, 1998, 2.
8. Ibid. 3.
9. Dr Peter Pockley, interviewed by Robyn Williams on the Science
Show 28 June 1997.
Susan Downing
27 April 1998
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and
Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure
that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information
publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are
those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and
Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues
contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and
for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal
opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary
or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators
and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
Commonwealth of Australia 1998
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1998.
|
