Procedures such as the Australian Government's border protection policy, its measures to blunt potential foreign terrorist aggression as well as its rhetoric and strategic and economic alliances have played a increasingly dominating role in governmental concerns and actions since the 11^th of September 2001.

    The emotional climate preceding the Australian federal election of November 10, 2001, falling just two months after the the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center's twin towers together with the repercussions set entrain by the sequence of responses led by the United States' Bush administration have increasingly distorted rationality. Australia is hardly alone in this, but not all Western nations have succumbed to the malady while nonetheless undertaking what they consider to be appropriate protective measures for their residents, citizens and non-citizens alike. In essence it is a matter of risk assessment and the balancing of  priorities.

    The Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, estimated that a sum of 100 to 200 million dollars is required (time period not specified) to maintain Australia's armed forces in the Persian Gulf and added that did not take into account the costs were they to become involved in conflict. And while the Government has been tight-lipped regarding the cost of its counter-terrorist measures or its procedures for dissuading non-credentialed  asylum seekers, figures of several billion dollars have been mooted.

    There is a tendency by the government when discussing these policies, to draw them in black and white as though there were but one self-evident course to follow. As a result, there is little possibility afforded for cogent comparisons of various options with regard to the nation's future. Researchers who contribute to critically peer reviewed journals and weather the scrutiny to which their submissions are subject might wonder how the "data", interpretations and conclusions that our leader of government and his senior ministers and advisors proclaim would fare under comparable examination. And yet the consequences to Australia may affect not only our generation but generations to come.

Our government's current financial and resource management looks to be increasingly out of step with the more progressive members of the OECD, and this despite repeated self-congratulatory pronouncements by the Treasurer and Prime Minister that Australia's economy is amongst the world's best performers. If that be so, why is our support for higher education, research and development lagging behind. [see benchmarking our R&D and a Graphic Look Back and Ahead for supporting data.]

    The portfolios of Science, Education and Training are arguably among the most important in government. The future of the nation's common wealth and wellbeing will be determined by how well they are administered and resourced.

    Recently, Morag Fraser made the observation in The Age, "In the lull between the drums and the air-raid sirens, we are having another higher education reform. Even if you hadn't noticed, you might have guessed - Brendan Nelson is the newish education minister and reviews and reforms are what education ministers now do. That way they can make their mark, and governments can avoid the difficult and expensive business of long-term education planning." And yet it is a curious thing that there is real and growing support for long-term education and R&D planning in the leading OECD nations. Why, for example, is Canada pushing its investment while refusing to join "The Coalition of the Willing" despite considerable US pressure? Jean Chrétien can hardly be described a wild-eyed-radical visionary but he and his cabinet continue to sustain the effort to build a knowledge infrastructure on which to shape a 21^st century nation. If our economy is so crash-hot-and-bloody-marvellous oughtn't we to be able ...?

But then it's a matter of setting priorities and good financial management.