The Hon Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister of Australia • November 7, 2024

Labor’s vision for an innovative Australia

Science is the key to creating a better Australia. We must devote more funding to research and development, and plan for Australia to be a renewable energy superpower in a carbon-constrained world.

Years on from the onset, the COVID-19 pandemic has renewed our respect for scientific experts and understanding that science can unlock our potential as a nation.


Science will be at the core of our future economic growth, as well as our new industries and the jobs they will create. Australians have a proud record of invention, and yet we do not properly celebrate our achievements. We need to raise the standard of the national conversation. We cannot speak of science as though it were an act of faith. We cannot let opinion or ideology trump truth. 


Labor is looking to the future with clear eyes, open minds and optimism. It is what Labor does. When the world was in turmoil, John Curtin and Ben Chifley spoke not just of victory in war but of victory in peace. Curtin didn’t live to see the peace, but Chifley worked his guts out for that second triumph. Among his priorities were enlarging the CSIRO and establishing the Australian National University. As Chifley said: “Scientific research is a necessity for the maintenance of our standard of living and even for our survival.” 


Returning to the complacency we saw before the 2019 bushfires and coronavirus outbreak is not an option.Today, droughts worsen and temperature records are broken. But we don’t have to surrender. Guided by science, we can fight climate change and create jobs at the same time. We can have a future as a renewable energy superpower, with all the associated environmental and economic benefits. You can get the policy settings right only when you respect and heed the science – and when the science is clear, politicians should act. 


Complacency has also decreased our economy’s resilience. The cautionary tale of Australia’s car industry is emblematic. This Government withdrew co-investment funding and dared manufacturers to leave – an invitation they accepted. This act of self-sabotage knocked us down the technological totem pole and further narrowed an economic base that has become overly reliant on services and the export of raw materials. We made ourselves vulnerable to a decline in living standards as a result. And when the next crisis severs global supply lines, we will be exposed. This is our chance to start turning things around. We must strengthen our capacity to create. We must become serious about high-tech manufacturing. But our research and development investment has fallen below two per cent of GDP – below countries including South Korea, Israel, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore.


As a nation, we need to be thinking about what share of our national income should be set aside for local research and development (R&D). Just as the Reserve Bank provides a degree of certainty to the financial markets on the future path of interest rates, Government needs to provide guidance on projected R&D spending. That way, the Australian community can invest in science with confidence. We could better commercialise research, thereby building up industries at home and selling their product to the world. Our failure in this area reduces potential revenue from intellectual property – undermining investment, entrepreneurship and technological growth. Labor has backed calls from the tech sector for R&D tax incentive refunds to be paid early. As part of our partnership with the private sector, a future Labor Government would encourage the superannuation industry to invest in infrastructure, technology and R&D consistently with members’ interests.


Take artificial intelligence (AI). In 2018 alone, AI contributed an estimated US$2 billion to the global economy. Within a decade, that figure is forecast to reach nearly US$16 billion. At the last federal election, Labor championed the establishment of a National Centre of AI Excellence, which would help chart the likely national investment required in this area by bringing together those with a stake in AI’s application in our economy. Australia has the talent and brainpower to prove a world leader in scientific endeavours, but hasn’t always shown the capacity to retain our most brilliant minds. 


We also need to be thinking about how to integrate our scientific research into national projects and objectives. We want a nation adapted to a carbon-constrained world. We want our cities and regions to remain habitable and productive. And we want our sights set on previously unthought-of possibilities. Let us make the most of recent wake-up calls. The 2019 bushfires showed what happens when we walk away from science into the darkness of denial; a virus has illuminated the path back. The moment is ours to seize. 




The Hon Anthony Albanese MP has been the Prime Minister of Australia since 2022, and Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labor Party since 2019. He has been Member of Parliament for Grayndler since 1996.


More Transformations Articles

Australia’s Innovation Challenge: 2021 & Beyond

By Phil Ruthven AM - Founder, IBISWorld & Ruthven Institute • November 27, 2024
Australia is a remarkably innovative nation. Prior to European settlement in 1788, Indigenous Australians pioneered ecological sustainability and developed an extensive knowledge of native flora and fauna, both of which remain outstanding achievements in the 21st century. Since then, Australians have continued to demonstrate ingenuity in many areas, including science, medicine and manufacturing. The nation’s achievements to date, include 15 Nobel Prize-winning innovations shared among 16 Australian recipients since the Prize was first awarded in 1901 (coincidentally, Australia’s year of Federation). It’s a proud past – but what can Australia expect of the future? What challenges will we face in 2020 and beyond? To answer this question, we need to consider several factors with regard to being innovative in an increasingly competitive world: • the changing world order; • our changing mix of industries; • the productivity challenge; • the elements of innovation (the who, what and how); and • the growing importance of intellectual property (IP) for business and economic success. The changing world-order The graph below suggests that the world – containing some 230 nations and protectorates – continues to amalgamate into larger cohorts. Over time, as a society and an economy, we have aggregated families (households) into tribes (local government), then into territories (states) and nations. These nations are now federating into eight regions, as highlighted below; and perhaps, as we move into the 22nd century, these regions will be presided over by an empowered world government or council of sorts. Regionalisation and globalisation are slow and painful processes, and there have been setbacks to both – take Brexit, for example. But, importantly, Australia is now part of the world’s largest region, the Asia Pacific, in terms of population and economic output. Indeed, the larger Asian megaregion (being the Asia Pacific and Indian subcontinent), accounts for two-thirds of Australia’s inbound tourism and immigration and 80% of our goods and services trade, respectively. A tectonic shift is underway in the global economy. The East, which already houses four-fifths of the world’s citizens, has also overtaken the West in GDP terms. Meanwhile, the economic and population pecking order of nations is changing fast, as we see in the following two graphs. 

Putting Science First

By Arthur Sinodinos • November 27, 2024
Science matters to every aspect of our lives. And yet it is under attack like never before in our lifetime. Climate change is just the latest battleground. The great American science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “Once you have an innovation culture, even those who are not scientists or engineers – poets, actors, journalists – they, as communities, embrace the meaning of what it is to be scientifically literate. They embrace the concept of an innovation culture. They vote in ways that promote it. They don’t fight science and they don’t fight technology.” It was recently reported that climate change will be taught as part of the high-school syllabus. Climate sceptics immediately jumped in to suggest that both sides of the argument be presented to students. On the face of it, that sounds fair, except that climate matters are a matter of science rather than a matter of opinion. The antagonism towards science goes further than climate science. Green groups cherry-pick the science, too. They are antagonistic towards genetically modified foods, which do not fit their organic worldview. Anti-vaccination groups prefer half-baked theories and pseudo-medicine to rigorous, evidence-based medicine. Beyond science, expertise, more broadly, is questioned. Some prefer to put their faith in the "wisdom of crowds." This aversion to science is being fuelled by the spread of fake news and preferred facts. Confirmation bias is rife. We look for facts and opinions to back up our point of view or favourite conspiracy theory. These conspiracies often turn on the role of people or institutions we do not like allegedly subverting the popular will. Mistrust of experts is facilitated by the rise of powerful search engines. Access to Google has made us all pseudo-researchers. We can scour the web for information and opinions to back up our preconceptions. How many people self-diagnose using Dr Google? Scientists cannot afford to leave it to others to fight their battles, whether in the halls of power or the public square. This is a hard ask for many scientists, who have traditionally been reluctant to engage in an adversarial way in the public arena. In other words, scientists prefer to let their work do the talking. Accordingly, we do not celebrate scientists in the same way or to the same extent that we do athletes and entertainers. Few scientists are household names, even though the fruits of science are all around us and make life possible on Earth. Appropriately, scientists are also very careful to avoid the kind of emphatic statements and ’soundbites’ so beloved of the media. The scientific method relies on constant querying, testing and retesting of hypotheses to disprove a proposition. Beautiful theories are slain by ugly facts. Some climate scientists argue that it is better not to engage in debate and simply ignore sceptics. Others argue, from a more rigorous point of view, that understanding why someone may be a climate sceptic is the key to potentially talking them around. I sought to engage climate sceptic Malcolm Roberts of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in dialogue when I was science minister. I brought his researchers together with senior scientists at the CSIRO for what I hoped would be a rigorous, evidence-based process. There were multiple sessions, but agreement was not possible. In retrospect, I’m not surprised. Another approach is to appeal to other views held by these sceptics – for example, those who support the use of nuclear energy in the interests of national sovereignty and self-sufficiency. We cannot wring our hands, ignore the doubters, and/or go to war. This is unduly defeatist. Information and transparency are the best disinfectant. We should build on existing science advocacy efforts. We do have Science Meets Parliament Week and other networking events. We have a Chief Scientist who speaks at public fora, engages in science education and appears before parliamentary committees, but no one person can carry the sector. Recently, the ABC’s Q+A program featured an all-scientist panel, but this is a comparative rarity. A few years ago, medical researchers organised to fight an attempt by the Gillard Government to cut funding for medical research. The fightback was novel and effective, but no one is encouraging scientists to take to the streets in a continual crusade for science. Scientists have to adopt the mindset of advocates. Used to being objective and evidence-based, they would be understandably uncomfortable with pure "spin". But today the facts need help and contextualisation. They otherwise risk being crowded out by assertion, self-interest and wilful ignorance. Evidence-based advocacy is not spin. It is essential to construct a narrative of what science is doing and who benefits. This must be practical and focused on people’s needs, expressed in clear, layman’s terms. Stakeholders who share the interests of scientists and are invested in the outcomes of science should be mobilised in support. They can be marshalled in a coalition of the willing to support the scientific case in public and with politicians, business and other influential members of society. Scientists reaching out to business can be beneficial on both economic and advocacy grounds. Effective collaboration between knowledge creators and industry is vital to maximising the prospects of successful commercialisation of domestic inventions and applications. Collaborating businesses develop a tangible stake in a healthy scientific scene in Australia. The government has taken measures to incentivise such collaboration, including changes to research block grant funding arrangements. The innovation ecosystem is growing, but it takes time to effect the necessary cultural change in the scientific and business communities. The American experience is a useful benchmark. Scientists should engage with politicians on all sides to establish constructive, long-term relationships. While the government of the day is always relevant, the opposition and independent members and senators should not be neglected. The opposition will one day be in power and crossbenchers can exert the balance of power in either chamber on occasion. Networking with new politicians is a useful investment that can pay off when these people are promoted into positions of power and influence. Arthur Sinodinos AO is an Australian diplomat and former Liberal Party politician who was an Ambassador to the United States from February 2020 until March 2023.