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.
Back to top