Minister Downplays Prospects of Significant Funding Increase For Universities in 2009/10 Budget. (October 8, 2008)

Writing in today's Australian Guy Healy and Luke Slattery report the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, told the Higher Education Supplement: "The fact of the matter is that by international standards (of innovation) we have been slipping. If we don't improve we won't be able to maintain living standards."

Keeping in mind that we are now five months into the 2008/09 budget and that serious work should be underway for the coming 2009/10 budget when asked if he meant that he would be seeking greater cabinet support in line with the recommendations of the Cutler report (the Bradley review of higher education has yet to be delivered) Senator Carr replied: "We are not talking about one budget and we are not talking about one parliament, we are talking about a 10-year program."

Frankly, it's looking very much like the senator and his colleagues have yet to put on their track shoes, let alone hunker down on the starting blocks.

Even as regards the $600 million in research block and research training funding that is currently allocated, and the Cutler recommendation on fundamentally redistributing university research funding, Senator Carr was overly evasive saying that is: "a question we will need to look at. That's part of the mission-based approach we'll adopt through the compacts. Where a university has a particular strength, we want to encourage it; where it may need to collaborate with other institutions we want to encourage that."

It's marvellous how the good senator talks as if universities were inanimate objects with inbuilt abilities comparable to BlueGene on steroids but with self-motivation which shall be broken to the saddle (compacts?).

BlueGene undressed

One of the problems is that university administrators foster such a mindset, and it is not one conducive to progress be it a matter of innovation or research.

__________________________________

Oh, and by the way, even if it's not quite apropos, on January 16, 2008 Senator Carr issued a statement which reads in part:

 The Rudd Government is committed to creating a charter (akin to that of the ABC) for public research agencies, including the CSIRO, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.

These charters will identify and guarantee the responsibilities and obligations of each organisation. They will enshrine not only the right, but the obligation, of scientists and other researchers to participate in public research debates. 

As an initial step, I will be consulting with public research agencies on developing a policy addressing these issues.

The principles guiding such a policy will include: 

• Encouragement of debate on scientific and other research issues of public interest.

• Support for the independence and integrity of public research agencies.

• Recognition that the Government remains responsible for the articulation, formulation and implementation of government policy.

• Support for the open communication, dissemination of information and debate about the results of scientific, technical and social research.

• Recognition that researchers are encouraged to engage in such communication and debate.

The Rudd Government's commitment to the independence of all researchers as they share knowledge and participate in public debate is not an isolated commitment.

So what's happening "charterwise"?