Science & Technology Australia welcomes National Reconstruction Fund
Science & Technology Australia Media Release
The nation’s peak body representing 115,000 Australian scientists and technologists welcomes Australia’s National Reconstruction Fund (NRF) as a powerful new investment in the country’s future.
The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund legislation passed the Senate last night, and secured final passage through the House of Representatives at lunchtime today.
The bill establishes the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation to administer the fund. The NRF will invest in Australian next-generation materials development, value-adding and advanced manufacturing among its seven priority areas.
Its remit includes clean energy and green technologies, mining science technologies, medical manufacturing, critical technologies, advanced manufacturing and value-adding in agriculture and food.
Science & Technology Australia CEO Misha Schubert said it would give Australia a powerful new vehicle to “spur and scale” the nation’s economic development and diversification.
“The creation of the new National Reconstruction Fund will be a transformative investment in our country’s future economic security powered by home-grown science,” she said.
“It will help to deepen Australia’s scientific and technological innovation – which is key to strengthening our national prosperity, creating jobs and securing new income streams.”
“This significantly boosts Australia’s pool of investment capital for next-generation materials development, value-adding and advanced manufacturing – the foundations of a strong, modern economy. This will help turbo-charge sovereign capability and economic complexity.”
On behalf of our 139 member organisations, Science & Technology Australia made a submission in February on the NRF’s design and implementation.
About Science & Technology Australia
Science & Technology Australia is the nation’s peak body representing more than 115,000 scientists and technologists. We’re the leading policy voice on science and technology. Our flagship programs include Science Meets Parliament, Superstars of STEM, and STA STEM Ambassadors.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
5 comments
Login here Register here-
New England Cocky
-
Fred
-
GL
-
andy56
-
Clakka
Return to home pageSomeone has been listening to my observation; NO R&D NO ECONOMIC FUTURE
Maybe a couple of bucks could be spent on the science part of the Bureau of Meteorology for a new algorithm to be used with their supercomputers to predict the daily weather and maybe fit some windows so they can see outside. The number of days last summer where the predicted 24 hr wind and/or rain was close to actual could be counted on 1 hand. As for 3 and 5 day forecasts, none were close. The temperature predictions were OK. I’ve given up trying to organise outdoor activities a week out.
Pardon the aside: I nearly choked on a mouthful of coffee from laughing at that fat moron Clive’s latest litigation stunt.
@1 hour ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/mar/30/australia-politics-live-unions-minimum-wage-indigenous-voice-job-vacancies-childcare-barack-obama-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton
what are the most pressing needs that need to be resolved in our country? Climate change abaitment and housing. What are the things we need to look at going forward? Food production and transport.
Before you invest a single penny, you have to have a plan. Whats the plan , apart from $10b ?
Until “we all love to see the plan…..” becomes a reality, its pissing more money into the weeds. LIBs lite.
GL, thanks for your ‘aside’ article.
I recently checked out ‘Separation of Powers’, parliament & judiciary. ‘Parliamentary Supremacy’ (or sovereignty) applies in Oz, and goes to the UK constitution, and Hobbes (16th-17thC), and Dicey (19th-20thC). Dicey’s Doctrine (love the moniker) holds that the ‘supremacy / sovereignty’ goes to the parliament, who can make or unmake any law, provided it complies with the Constitution. And per se even extends to the people as electors of the parliament – thus changing the Constitution requires a referendum.
Dicey’s Doctrine is a bedrock of democracy, and has been tested in USA, and applies to the basis of International Law.
It would seem Palmer and Porter are on a hiding to nothing, but that seems to never have stopped either of them. I just hope they have to pay all the costs, both their own and this of the State.
If the electors fully understood this, they might require a more deliberative debate (and honesty) before casting their vote.