2021 Federal Budget backs biotech Announcements in the 2021 Federal Budget are backing biotech and demonstrating the Government’s ongoing recognition of biotechnology as a long-term social and economic driver that will enhance Australia’s competitiveness, and keep us at the cutting edge of science and innovation.Following the October budget’s support of pre-revenue companies through the RDTI, this budget offers further support of biotech manufacturing and the talent behind the companies and products.Research and innovation are central to Australia’s international competitiveness and the newly announced patent box will help bridge the gap to commercialisation, and support companies to keep the development of their IP and the value they create from it – especially by manufacturing locally – in Australia to benefit Australians.Only patents applied for after the Budget announcement will be eligible, which means that the benefits will not be seen for some years, however AusBiotech is pleased that the patent box will offer sound long-term structural policy that will benefit the country. Advocacy interest in the incentive commenced in 2013, and AusBiotech commends the Government whole-heartedly for this announcement for medical and biotechnology innovations. The Government has pledged to work closely with industry on its design, and AusBiotech looks forward to continuing this work together.The budget also included support for building sovereign manufacturing capability by way of developing onshore mRNA vaccine manufacturing capability in Australia; employee share schemes reform; clinical trials support, scholarships for women in STEM, in partnership with industry; and retaining the prostheses list.As the national voice of the biotechnology sector for more than 35 years, AusBiotech remains committed to amplifying opportunities and communicating the industry’s concerns to reduce barriers. It is pleased to deliver a wrap-up of announcements for life sciences that will work to support the capability and capacity of our sector and enable it to thrive long-term as a global leader. /Public Release. This material comes from the originating organization and may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. View in full here. Why?Well, unlike many news organisations, we have no sponsors, no corporate or ideological interests. We don’t put up a paywall – we believe in free access to information of public interest. Media ownership in Australia is one of the most concentrated in the world (Learn more). Since the trend of consolidation is and has historically been upward, fewer and fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media in our country. According to independent assessment, about 98% of the media sector is held by three conglomerates. This tendency is not only totally unacceptable, but also to a degree frightening). Learn more hereWe endeavour to provide the community with real-time access to true unfiltered news firsthand from primary sources. It is a bumpy road with all sorties of difficulties. We can only achieve this goal together. Our website is open to any citizen journalists and organizations who want to contribute, publish high-quality insights or send media releases to improve public access to impartial information. You and we have the right to know, learn, read, hear what and how we deem appropriate.Your support is greatly appreciated. All donations are kept completely private and confidential.Thank you in advance!Tags:agbiotech, AusBiotech, Australia, biotech, biotechnology, Biotechnology Industry, building, clinical trials, Federal, federal budget, Government, industry, innovation, reform, research, science, stem, vaccine
HomeBlog Kroes stirs up EU net neutrality debate Blog: Will Brexit see return of UK roaming fees? Tags EUNet Neutrality Previous ArticleHuawei wins M-Pesa upgrade contract in KenyaNext ArticleSprint slams latest Dish offer for Clearwire Author The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members. Blog: Is Title II really an investment killer? Related Ken Wieland Ken has been part of the MWC Mobile World Daily editorial team for the last three years, and is now contributing regularly to Mobile World Live. He has been a telecoms journalist for over 15 years, which includes eight…More Read more Blog AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 03 JUN 2013 EU roaming: a race to the bottom? NEW BLOG: In her most recent call for a single European telecoms market, Neelie Kroes, Europe’s digital commissioner, enthused about getting rid of premium roaming rates. Nothing new there, perhaps, but she also talked about “guaranteeing net neutrality”.It seems a big shift from her previous stance on the “open internet”, where the emphasis was on making operators’ traffic management policies more transparent.The prospect of EU-wide net neutrality legislation is sure to agitate operators fearful of so-called OTT competition. It will also raise the hackles of EU sovereign states that don’t take kindly to directives from Brussels. This is going to be hard for Kroes to pull off.It’s not yet clear how Europe’s digital chief intends to make her net neutrality guarantees, but a collision course has surely been set with many mobile and fixed-line operators, particularly those that have spent heavily on revamping their broadband access networks.Only days before Kroes was making her speech in Brussels, directed at the European Parliament, the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) – a lobby group for the region’s biggest telecom groups – was having its own meeting in Milan where the “digital single market” was discussed.ETNO’s subsequent statements hardly suggest that Kroes is going to have an easy net neutrality ride. While the lobby group acknowledges that investment in Europe is lagging behind other developed economies, ETNO lays only part of the blame on fragmented markets. Another contributory cause, it says, is an unpredictable and non-harmonised regulatory environment, which “still favours access seekers over investors”.Temperature’s risingNet neutrality never used to set pulses racing in Europe. If a network operator tried to stop customers from accessing rival services and content over the internet, or charged extra for them, it was seen as a self-defeating action. Competition in the region was so fierce, operators not toeing the net-neutrality line would surely lose out to those that did. Market forces, not regulatory intervention, seemed an effective guardian of the open internet.This is no longer the case. A growing number of European operators now claim the right to determine what services travel over their expensively-constructed broadband networks. And nor are they afraid to hit back against consumer lobby groups and regulators that say otherwise. The temperature of Europe’s net neutrality debate is rising.We saw this in the UK last year when the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) – the government’s leading advisory agency on broadband – launched its Open Internet Code of Practice. Building on a previous initiative on transparency (giving customers easier access to information on operators’ traffic management practices) the new code cranked up net-neutrality pressure on operators.It may even provide a window on Kroes’ thinking about how net neutrality enforcement could work in practice.Signatories to the UK code mustn’t block any legal content or services, or make them difficult to access. If they do, they need to come clean on what restrictions are in place. And products that have restrictions cannot be marketed as providing “internet access”.True, many UK operators saw merit in the code. BT, BSkyB, O2, TalkTalk and Three UK were among the signatories (even though it was not compulsory).But others refused to sign, including EE (a joint venture between Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom), Virgin Media (a cable operator) and Vodafone.While these three companies say they support open internet principles – each signed up to the previous transparency initiative – they objected to dropping “internet access” from marketing materials. It suggested, of course, they already maintained service restrictions or had plans to introduce some.Net neutrality dissentThe UK is not an isolated European example of operator dissent to net neutrality. A report last year by Berec, a pan-European regulator advisory body, found that restrictions on internet services were fairly widespread. At least 20 per cent of mobile internet users in Europe experienced difficultly in accessing VoIP services, such as Skype, which deny voice-call revenue to operators. In countries where competition is not as great, Berec said this figure could exceed 90 per cent.Kroes, with her latest rallying cry, implies that reliance on greater transparency and market forces is not enough to “guarantee” net neutrality. She seems to prefer instead the legal clout to penalise operators if they block internet-based rivals. That will no doubt appeal to consumer groups as well.There is a precedent for net neutrality legislation in Europe. KPN, the biggest operator in the Netherlands, warned 3G customers in early 2011 that it would make them pay extra for using third-party messaging or VoIP applications. The announcement sparked a consumer backlash and net neutrality was written into the country’s telecommunications law a few months later.A pan-European agreement that guarantees net neutrality is unlikely to be implemented so swiftly. Instead, as in the US – where net neutrality is a much more hotly-contested topic, largely because competition is not as fierce – Europe seems headed for even greater friction between operators and regulators, perhaps even court battles. As network operators feel the growing financial strain of carrying rival internet services, it’s hard to imagine there won’t be some strong kicking back in Europe against net neutrality forces.Kroes has got her work cut out.