Science and Technology Deficit. A Decade of Neglect Gets Deserved Recognition. But Will Anything Useful be Done? (July 20, 2006)

    In March last year the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson issued

Australian Government

Audit of Science, Engineering and Technology Skills

DRAFT Discussion Paper

In hindsight his introduction is a model of spin:

A Message from the Minister

Australia’s future prosperity relies heavily on science, research and innovation and our ability to perform successfully in a highly competitive global market.

Reflecting its commitment to science and innovation, the Australian Government has placed considerable emphasis on improving funding for research and in prioritising research in recent years. Initiatives include Backing Australia’s Ability, the development of National Research Priorities, a report on Mapping Australia’s Science and Innovation, and Backing Australia’s Ability – Building our Future through Science and Innovation.

Australia’s scientific and engineering capacity depends, importantly, on the availability of suitably skilled scientists and engineers to meet industry skill needs.

Concerns have arisen that the supply of these skills may not be growing sufficiently to meet emerging needs, especially given the effect of globalisation in skilled labour markets.

Against this background, an audit of science, engineering and technology skills to examine trends in demand and supply of these skills will provide an analytical basis for further consideration of the issues.

I invite your input to the audit by way of written submission or by attending one of the upcoming public consultations which will be held in all capital cities.

BRENDAN NELSON

This week the current minister, Julie Bishop, released the official audit of Australia's scientific, engineering and technology skills. During its tenure in office the Coalition Government under the Prime Ministership of John Howard has under-resourced the maintenance and development of "Science, Engineering and Technology Skills" to the point that the audit by its department of education, science and training warns in its final report that Australia is likely to suffer a short-fall of as much as 35% in its estimated requirement of 55,000 additional scientific professionals -- that is of meeting its projected need for an extra 55,000 scientific professionals within six years. That comes to just over 19,000 individuals.

According tho The Sydney Morning Herald's Editorial writer, "...the Howard Government has not directed adequate funds or thought to matching the scientific and technological challenges mounted by competing nations."

We would disagree. What the nation is heir to is a deliberate policy of Mr Howard and his colleagues to reduce real support for teaching and research in science and engineering both directly and indirectly.

And what so far has been the Federal Government's response, through Ms Bishop, to DEST's audit?

An $18.3 million scheme (over three years) to provide the CSIRO with an extra 40 postdoctoral fellowships and 10 new positions for leading scientists.

Oh yes, and would CSIRO, and maybe even other governmental and private research institutions, offer promising researchers more permanent and satisfying career paths and opportunities for overseas experience.

And we also have one of the classic ploys of wanting to appear to be doing something when you really don't want to do anything of consequence.

Ms Bishop has commissioned more research on the reluctance of schoolchildren to take up science and mathematics, and the need for more highly qualified teachers in these disciplines.

"[What we need is] a more coherent, co-ordinated and national approach to science education," she told the Sydney Institute.

The Herald's editorial points out, "Labor's spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, made a fair point yesterday, pointing out that a big disincentive is that the cost of a science degree has risen by $13,500 since the Howard Government came to power, and that of an engineering degree by $16,000.

But much more is needed. More and better science and maths teachers in primary and secondary schools, greater incentives to attract good teachers, better university resources in infrastructure and staffing to teach and enthuse the would be teachers.

And that requires reversing the dilapidation that has been inflicted on the universities over the past decade.

Does anyone serious believe that Ms Bishop is going to be able to accomplish that even if she decided that was a course worth pursuing?