If the Government is serious about reining in spending, where is the money for more research and development going to come from?

In due course that will be an issue as well. We have promised an education revolution and I'm saying very much part of that is a research revolution. In terms of future budgetary commitments, that's an issue we need to work through. The whole idea of this review is to examine what the country actually needs. This is an evidence-based policy development process, it's a public process - we want to have ideas contested - and this is a review that will produce a green paper by the middle of the year and a white paper response from both the Treasurer and myself, we are co-sponsoring that, hopefully by the end of the year. That means we can have policy options considered by government that will feed into the future budgetary rounds.

Your first move after the election was to restore the independence of the Australian Research Council. Why was that necessary?

With the previous Government, on 10 separate occasions, there were vetoes applied to grants, but there was no public explanation given as to why. I think that had a serious effect on morale. In a whole range of areas there are researchers who have been publicly attacked for daring to offer an opinion. There was a clear effort, in my opinion, to channel public debate away from policy areas and policy ideas that were controversial, there was an attempt to denigrate researchers who had a different view on climate change or industrial relations or even on issues such as media management of the children overboard affair. There is a long list of examples of where there were assaults on what the Government regarded as its cultural enemies, and it treated researchers with disdain and took the view that our public institutions were not to be trusted. As a consequence we had the culture wars, which were aimed at the suppression of political dissent as they saw it - they defined it. I take a different view. There will be times when people don't agree with the policy position of the Government, however the policy position of the Government is the Government's to defend through the parliamentary system. I'm responsible for putting that argument to the parliament. But on the question of discovery, it's very important that the public is informed. We will enhance the public's appreciation of the value of research if we can ensure that the public is provided with the information about new discovery.

There was an early issue just after the election about the vetting of CSIRO press releases - how does that tally with your previous statement?

Essentially what occurred was there was some miscommunication - we were a new Government, we'd been in office for a week, communications were issued by the department which did not reflect accurately the position that I'd been arguing for all the time I've been in public life. What we've said since in regard to the charters [of rights and responsibilities] for public research agencies and in terms of independence, academic freedom and institutional autonomy is in keeping with the position I've always maintained.

Regarding those charters of independence, you have said you believe that not only do researchers have a right but they have a duty to communicate their work.

I do. I'm encouraging public debate. I think we will have a better informed public if we are able to communicate. In most areas of policy there is a contest for ideas and it's a myth to suggest that there are tablets of stone handed down. There are differences in interpretation and points of view and I want to see those discussions. We don't have to be frightened of new ideas. It doesn't mean that everything that is said will be right or for that matter that people don't have the right to be wrong. I would always obviously urge people to think about how they put a case because there are other points of view and under a peer review system, you would encourage people who have a difference of view. I'm not looking for a preordained truth - this is about encouraging the contestability of ideas.