Is Research an Election Issue? Group of Eight Begins Pre-Election Lobbying in Hope. (June 11, 2004)

Last week saw Minister for Education, Science and Training Brendan Nelson, Science Minister Peter McGauran, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Ian Macfarlane, Opposition education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin and Australian Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett buttonholed by Vice-Chancellors of the Group of Eight.

    Undeterred by Peter McGauran having stated a few weeks earlier that hitching R&D funding to a Nation's GDP or the Prime Minister eschewing setting targets for such things as R&D funding the representatives of Australia's dominant research universities pointed out that  in the current financial year Australia's gross expenditure on R&D is $6.5 billion short of the OECD average based on percentage of GDP.

    Ian Chubb, current chair of the Go8 told The Australian, "We have to try to inform politicians of the need to get industry to invest better in R&D; public expenditure [on R&D] is not too bad these days but the contribution from elsewhere is pretty poor."

    Unfortunately neither the Federal Government, the Go8, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee nor the National Tertiary Education Union has disclosed or determined what percent of government funding for R&D is directed to what would be seen to be industrial research thereby reducing the resources available to the nation for basic research and research "for the public good". It might be a edifying exercise to compare the distribution of government revenue for R&D by Australia as compared to the member nations of the OECD.

    What the Go8 V-Cs did bring up in their discussions with the ministers, Ms Macklin and Senator Bartlett were issues still swirling in the ether: the role of research quality in distributing funds, the Research Training Scheme and the high cost to universities of matching funds won from government. There is no indication that they were given cogent answers. Apparently there was a good deal of finger pointing dubious budgeting assessments declaimed.

    According to The Australian, "Professor Chubb [said] 'some of the arithmetic being thrown about by the players' needed checking.'" and said "his criticism was aimed at all parties and the university sector. The uncertainty about the implications of various policies meant the Go8 had further work to do on the figures being 'bandied around'."

It is a moot point as to how useful it is to merely approach Australia's federal politicians with regard to research and university funding. There is little indication that they take either matter to be of serious electoral consequence. The fact that reporting of this meeting didn't get beyond The Australian's Higher Education Section suggests that the politicians are not alone in their assessment of the perceived public disinterest. While university fees and number of places win significant media time, research funding or improving of university research or teaching quality seldom is.

    The challenge for the Group of Eight is first to gain the Australian public's interest and then to make a convincing case for the necessity of top class research and higher education sectors for their future well being and that of future generations.