NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2003
Editorial

In last May’s Federal Budget, Federal Treasurer Peter Costello announced that successive surpluses would enable the government to give something back to taxpayers. But the tax cut announced of $4 per week did not inspire celebrations in the street - as it was pointed out at the time, this was merely enough to purchase a milkshake.

At the time Australasian Science argued that the government should instead invest the surplus in Australia’s future by supporting R&D. Government expenditure on R&D has slumped to 0.66% of GDP since the Coalition took power in 1996, while nations like Canada have set a goal of 3% by 2010.

Now it transpires that a large increase in tax revenue has swelled the Budget surplus to $7.5 billion. While further tax cuts have been mooted, many commentators have rightly argued that the money should be used to fix budget shortfalls in health and education.

The Australian Society of Medical Research was quickly off the mark, pitching for an additional $1 billion over 5 years. To support its demands it released an independent report by Access Economics which found that $1 invested in medical R&D returned $5 in national economic benefit.

Apart from health and education, the budget surplus could fund a number of other programs of national significance:

• tackling salinity, which each year costs $294 million in the Murray-Darling Basin alone;
• reducing evaporation from open irrigation channels, from which up to 544 ML of water evaporates every day;
• improving the career structure of science to minimise the brain drain to other nations or other, more secure careers (see conScience, p.43);
• reinstating an effective tax concession system to stimulate R&D; and
• adequately funding national icons like the ABC and CSIRO.

Of course, none of these will be funded in any meaningful way. On a dollar per vote basis they are not cost-effective for politicians.

However, there is one small expenditure the government should make with its budget surplus. When the Howard government swept into office in 1996 it demoted the Chief Scientist to a part-time position. Last month this decision caused some angst when Chief Scientist Robin Batterham, who shares his time with mining giant Rio Tinto, was accused by Greens leader Bob Brown of a conflict of interest (see pp.39-40). Brown questioned whether Batterham could give independent advice on renewable energy when his other employer has a vested interest in coal.

While Batterham’s integrity is not doubted, there is little confidence in the Chinese walls that Science Minister Peter McGauran says exist in Rio. Instead McGauran should recognise that Australia deserves a full-time Chief Scientist.

Guy Nolch
Editor