A couple of days back a large envelope
arrived in the post containing a 68 page booklet accompanied by a
form letter from the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick
Minchin. The booklet,
Backing Australia's
Ability -- Real Results, Real Jobs
, available online, is in Senator Minchin's words, "[T]he first annual
report card on the Government's actions to promote Australian innovation,
particularly the Government's unprecedented $3 billion, five year innovation
plan, Backing Australia's
Ability (BAA)
."
As one would expect, the material extols the Government's accomplishments and intentions and in fact, in the eight months since the Prime Minister announced it, significant steps have been taken to implement the plan.
That said, the point has been made by various bodies including the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, the Group of Eight and the National Tertiary Education Union that the Government's initiative is a good start but significantly more has to be provided if Australia is to catch up with its cohort nations, e.g. those constituting the EU. The Group of Eight graphically illustrated this in the chart it posted on its Website in April. In addition it should be remembered that over the past four quarters overall inflation has been 6% while the Australian dollar has fallen nearly 8% against the US$.
The header on page 19 of the Booklet reads Taking the right actions and is followed by the text:
Every day, without consciously thinking of it, we all reap the benefits when new ideas are transformed into commercial realities.
Without science, R&D and innovation, we would not be as far along as a nation as we are today. This is possible in part through the Government’s commitment to providing the right mix of incentives to support the development of promising ideas and strengthen our ability to transform them into commercial successes.
Even though Australia is already in the top six OECD countries for R&D expenditure in the public sector, the Government continues to help by taking action -- investing in innovation, commercialising ideas and strengthening the links between science, R&D, industry and business.
Every year, the Government provides funding support for science and innovation, both through the Federal Budget and other sources. The 2001-2002 allocations show a $311 million boost in funding (including some initial funding from Backing Australia’s Ability).
The table below, also from page 19 should be viewed in the light of the these observations together with the figures above and the Group of Eight's graph.
The percentage increases reading from top to bottom are 3.1%, 23%, 10.2%, 3.7% and overall, 7.1%. Medical research and the CRCs have done well, the private sector gets a bit of an increase while the major federal research agencies and university research have gone backwards when inflation and the lower value of the dollar are considered. Contrast this with the paragraphs on pages 4 and 5 of Senator Minchin's "report card":
The Government’s overall strategic approach supports Australia’s long-term future. This involves ensuring that economic fundamentals are in place and focusing our efforts on programs that are well targeted.
Backing Australia’s Ability is building on the innovation initiatives the Government already has in place to provide the strategic vision and long-term commitment to create an environment that encourages ideas—an environment in which innovation will thrive.A well-educated and skilled workforce that embraces life-long learning is essential for Australia to achieve its full potential as a strong economy capable of generating employment. The Government recognises that we need to ‘educate for innovation’ and is implementing
major education and training initiatives.
In reading through the booklet it is understandable why those vice-chancellors who fronted the Senate committee evaluating the capacity of our public universities to meet the nation's needs were troubled by the state of their institutions. The BAA "report card" places strong emphasis on short term returns. By no means entirely so, but the renovation of our tertiary institutions is certainly not a priority and that calls into serious question the Government's statement that it is providing the right mix of incentives to support the development of promising ideas and strengthen our ability to transform them into commercial successes.
One of the flagship initiatives of BAA is the
Major
National Research Facilities program. Its professed purpose is to, "provide
our researchers with the most up-to-date facilities and equipment, and to build
leading-edge research capabilities" (p29). BAA has designated $155
million over the next five years and will fund 15 of the 90 proposals submitted
on a matched funding basis.
It's interesting to contrast this funding with the $145 million the New South
Wales Government allocated
It's a similar story for the upgrading of university facilities.
"As part of the overall $1.3 billion committed to higher education research in Backing Australia's Ability, $337 million over five years will assist universities to acquire the equipment, facilities and technical support necessary to perform world-class research. This project-specific research infrastructure initiative, through the Research Infrastructure Block Grants Scheme , is maintaining infrastructure support at 20 cents for each competitive research dollar obtained by universities. Funding commences in 2002." (p28) This money is to be provided over five years and covers Australia's 38 publicly funded universities and must be matched 4 to one. It doesn't bode well, even if the "total of $246 million over five years will fund universities' systemic research and research training infrastructure" (p28).
Compare these sums to the over A$24 billion Intel is spending
during the downturn on R&D and infrastructure this fiscal year, over A$8 billion
of which is the R&D component. Going though the booklet one's left with the
impression not so much BAA being a good start as being rather modest and
very late. Keep in mind that most of the money is in forward estimates.
Page 14
of the original paper : "Backing
Australia’s Ability provides $2.9 billion of additional funding over 5 years,
with $159 million in the first year growing to $947 million in 2005-06."
That impression becomes heightened in the light of recent events. First the government has been adamant that it is being adequately generous in its funding for scientific research as well as Australia's tertiary educational system. This despite the Group of Eight pointing out that through 2006 our support for research and development will be at best a stagnant 1.40% of GDP while the OECD average will rise from 1.95% to 2.2%. However, Senator Minchin isn't phased and points out that, "Even though Australia is already in the top six OECD countries for R&D expenditure in the public sector, the Government continues to help by taking action -- investing in innovation, commercialising ideas and strengthening the links between science, R&D, industry and business" (p19).
Why the apparent discrepancy? Principally because our private sector is remarkably parsimonious when it comes to funding R&D projects. Other OECD nations' private sectors are not remarkably philanthropic with shareholders money; they invest in R&D because they believe it pays them to do so, and government incentives go a long way toward achieving this viewpoint. Government incentives in Australia have not come up to the levels needed, and such incentives are indirect government R&D expenditure. While it is understandable for the Government not to factor them in, it is misleading.
Turning to the degeneration of our tertiary education system, there is what can fairly be described as increasing disquiet at the Government's lack of acceptance that the system needs a far-reaching overhaul.
The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has pointed out the from 1995 to 1999 federal funding for research and teaching at universities has declined by nearly $900 million.
The Senate committee determining the capacity of our universities to meet the nation's needs after receiving some 360 submissions and listening to over 100 witnesses titled its report Universities in Crisis.
Nevertheless Liberal Senator's Tierney and Brandis in their minority opinion swept the report off the table saying, "[The] Government senators would like to place on the record their disappointment and regret that the Opposition senators have used the forum of this inquiry to sensationalise the challenges facing our higher education sector and undermine the international reputation of our universities and our community's confidence in their higher education institutions, for cynical political purposes." So much for the witnesses and submissions.
On the other hand Australian Democrat Natasha Stott Despoja in her minority opinion endorsed the report and went further by first observing, "To describe our universities as being in ‘crisis’ is not a description that can or has been made lightly. The Committee has read and heard compelling evidence that the current Government’s vigorous, indeed ideological, pursuit of marketisation of education in combination with cutbacks in public funding have been the principal factors resulting in our universities in crisis.
"The Democrats believe that the case for substantial and urgent re-investment of public funds in our universities is over-whelming and failure to do so will constitute a serious abrogation of responsibility to Australia's future social, cultural and economic prosperity."
Then the senator goes on to list 17 recommendations in addition to the 39 endorsed in the majority report. She calls for the injection of a, " minimum, $500 million additional funds [to be] committed to university operating grants in 2002, as part of a 20% increase over 3 years to take account of unfunded changes in cost structures since 1996. That this 3 year initial re-investment be the basis for a 10 year commitment that is a more realistic basis for public investment in higher education." Is the AD leader scaremongering, or mightn't she be just telling it like it is?The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Alan Gilbert, told an Australia Institute conference debating The Idea of a University: Enterprise or Academy that "The best universities in Australia are not among the world's top 75 universities and probably not among the top 100."
Finally the Australian Technology and Further Education ( TAFE) Directors, representing the nation's 72 TAFEs maintain in this year's Position Paper:
"With regard to vocational education Australia currently compares poorly with other countries.
"Australia ranks only 17th out of 28 in the OECD in terms of the working age population who have completed upper secondary education.
"About 50% of the workforce in Australia have no post-school qualifications.
" About 45% of the working age population have low literacy levels.
"Given these figures, it is perplexing and disturbing that our public investment in vocational education and training as a proportion of GDP has actually been falling, rather than rising.
"In vocational education total (public and private) funding per student and per course-hour is now declining sharply, having fallen by 11% in the two years 1997 to 1999. The principal cause of the downward trend, as is the case in higher education, has been the partial withdrawal of Commonwealth financial support"
In an October 9th press release they request at least $345 million in annual expenditure to meet growth in student demand and another $350 million over three years for computers and high-tech facilities. TAFE Directors chairwoman Gillian Shadwick said, "We believe that if the government does not seriously and immediately commit to an increased investment in vocational education and training, then many Australians will suffer low wages, low skills, increased unemployment and increased social alienation."
As you can see, the Government's graph doesn't quite indicate the complete picture.
Currently there are events overseas that will have a significant impact on Australians and their mode of life. But the consequences for the nation, should our tertiary educational system not be resurrected, will be at least as far-reaching. The crumbling of our core science departments in our universities will come to have a devastating effect on research and teaching not only in mathematics, physics and chemistry, it will impact on the biomedical sciences, applied science in all fields, and the quality of the teaching in our secondary schools.
Senators Tierney and Brandis accuse the Committee's majority of, "undermin[ing] the international reputation of our universities and our community's confidence in their higher education institutions, for cynical political purposes." If that be true, such opprobrium should be applied equally to the vast majority of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, those who made written submissions, the Directors of our 72 TAFEs, and the Vice-Chancellors of our top universities.
Isn't it appropriate to ask
just who is it that's out of step and out of touch?
The fact is, the nation is at risk - serious risk - of losing its way.
Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web
