Labor Pledges to Fund a $22 Million "Smart Partnerships Program" Over Four Years to Boost Private Sector R&D, and $121m plan for Science Fellowships. (September 23, 2004)

    Labor's Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science & Research, Senator Kim Carr, claimed today that the lack of cooperation both within and between public and private research is the greatest block to innovation in Australia. While that may be a rather simplistic view of the overall problems facing Australian research and development which have been exacerbated by the the Coalition's policies since 1996, it certainly is a factor.

According to Senator Carr:

    Labor will fund the $22 million Smart Partnerships program over four years to place researchers into industry and to identify and advocate good business ideas with commercial potential.

    Over the four years more than 800 researchers will be offered placements...

In a second initiative termed "Bridging the Gap" Labor promises to:

    Provide $6 million in seed funding over four years to bridge the cultural gap between business and academia with specific courses
aimed at doing better business overseas.

Professor Snow Barlow, President of the Federation of Scientific and Technological, commenting on Labor's announcement said, "At a cost of $22 million, [the Smart Partnership] policy initiative is a modest but well-targeted initiative that will have real long-term benefits for the Australian economy and productivity; [currently] compared to the OECD average, Australia only has 40 percent as many researchers employed in industry - 1.7 researchers per 10,000 workers compared to the OECD average of 4.1."

Professor Barlow then addressed a common defence for the low level of Australian business expenditure on research and development. "Australia's low level of business expenditure in R&D (BERD) is frequently explained away as merely a function of the structure of the Australian economy. That is, compared to OECD countries, Australia has a high percentage of SMEs, a small advanced manufacturing sector, large service sector and few major global brands doing R&D. This structural argument ignores the equally important cultural factors that contribute to low business R&D spend including HR profiles, R&D-averse risk management and short-time horizons."

Whether or not, were a Labor Government to be installed in October, it would build on its proposed starter support and how it would upgrade the public sector infrastructure to raise it to become a top OECD player remains a mystery.

Senator also announced today that Labor would scrap the Coalition government's Federation Fellowships which it considers to be overly generous, did not entice enough researchers to return to Australia, and largely went to older recipients. In its place Labor would offer 200 fellowships over three years.  Half would go to researchers in priority areas such as bioscience and engineering, while the remainder would go to regional universities or public research agencies. The mid-career researchers would pocket $100,000, while the host organisation would get $40,000 to help with costs. However, nothing has been said regarding mathematics and the enabling science and the matter of Labor's policies regarding rebuilding university infrastructure and staffing remains to be produced. Unless the research milieu at our universities and public research centres are upgraded Labor's fellowship program will not entice our best researchers to turn their backs on the situations they will be able to command overseas.

It's worth recalling that Graeme Hugo, a Federation Fellow and Professor of Geography at the University of Adelaide addressed the Monash Seminars on Higher Education on The Demography of Australia's Academic Workforce: Patterns, Problems and Policy Implications earlier this month which included the results of a survey of expat researchers. A couple of excepts are telling, but if either Labor or the Coalition have taken serious note is debatable:

Professor Hugo writes, "The survey involved both qualitative and quantitative dimensions and the responses of academics reflect the fact that many felt that the limitations of the situation was a strong element in their move [overseas to further their careers]. Some quotations indicate this."

“I see myself as part of a ‘brain drain’ of academic achievers who have left Australia for the UK or USA because of the gradual decay/active destruction of Australian universities. Salaries, teaching conditions and research funding are all of massive concern – as is job security. I hope the results from this survey send a clear message that many of us who have left would like to return eventually but fear it is difficult or impossible to do at the present.”

“The most useful point I can make is that I am one of a group of a growing number of Australian academics who realise that I can earn a lot more, get better research funding and a perfectly good lifestyle in Europe.”

“Since leaving Australia, my career in medical research has broadened in a combination teaching, research and administration in ways that would be extremely difficult or impossible in Australia. I have no doubts that my career would have remained stunted had I decided to remain in Australia.”

Hugo continues, "many also mentioned the greater access to research funding and superior conditions for research. This is evident in the following…"

“I feel very displaced by the current trend of declining university funding. There are simply no opportunities in university geology in Australia. ARC funding is unreasonably difficult to acquire. I have successfully acquired NSF funding in the USA.”

“I would love to return but none of my compatriots in Australia can come close to the resources and funds at my disposal. I don’t feel it is worthwhile to fight for a small grant in Australia when I can readily get large grants (US$3 million) here. Until the NH&MRC is properly funded there is no point in returning.”