Senior Cabinet Members Put Ms Bishop in Her Place. (January 4, 2007)

    If the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, had any illusions as to just where she as a newbie to the Cabinet was placed in the pecking order, the current budget discussions within Cabinet should have clarified her position.

Steve Lewis and David Uren report in today's Australian that severe cuts for the 2007/08 federal budget are in the offing and interestingly enough Ms Bishop's Department gets the most coverage from Lewis and Uren:

One of the Government's rising stars, Education, Science and Training Minister Julie Bishop, received a particularly bruising reception when she proposed a raft of measures.

These included a big-spending program for school education. Senior ministers rejected the program, worried that it involved too much commonwealth subsidy to the states.

Ms Bishop has also been forced to dump plans to boost spending on science after senior ministers instead decided they wanted her to focus on higher education.

This is a tactic to blunt Labor's expected push to make the cost of university education a centrepiece of its campaign pitch to voters, including measures to ease the cost of HECS.

One source identified only as "another Coalition figure" said, "Some ministers have been pretty bruised. Julie got a real going-over." From an additional source: "The Australian has learned Ms Bishop is developing a smaller schools package, to be unveiled in the budget. It will likely include measures to improve education standards, with the Prime Minister nominating this area of reform as one of his key priorities in the election year."

To highlight what comes close to black farce Ms Bishop has stated she is so concerned by the fact that students find lab coats and scientific study such a turn-off, she is looking for new ways to attract a future crop of researchers. "Part of the problem lies with our community's attitude towards scientists," Ms Bishop told ABC TV. "They are not valued as they should be. Children for example could name their sporting hero or film stars or celebrities but they would be hard pressed to name a Nobel laureate. We have to encourage more of our bright students to look at science as a career, and that's why we have to encourage them to take up science study at school - particularly primary school."

Perhaps the minister might start by developing a strategy to proselyte her Cabinet colleagues with regard say to university research infrastructure, because it is the foundation which attracts good researchers and on which good science, good science teaching and attracting good students is based, but judging by her bashing of Australian universities when she took to heart the viewpoint of her Prime Minister, it's doubtful that that could become a matter of priority.

In September 2003 TFW wrote,

"In 1992 the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Kim Beazley, requested the National Board of Employment, Education and Training* to report on Higher Education Research Infrastructure.  The Board invited the Boston Consulting Group to assist it in its determination, and in May1993 it forwarded its final report to the Minister.

    The Board recommended an immediate increase above the then $342 million dollars provided by the Commonwealth for university research infrastructure of 37%, i.e. an additional $125 million per annum (1991 dollars, consumer price index (1991) = 106.5). In September 2002 the cpi = 142; so in 2002 dollars a simple calculation yields ((342+125) / 106.5) x 142 = $623 million dollars the amount in current dollars that would have been the recommendation for maintaining university research infrastructure of the 1995 university system, i.e. the year the changes were recommended to begin. The year the Coalition assumed government.

 

Remarkably, in the current submissions made to DEST in regard to  Evaluation of the Knowledge and Innovation Reforms and the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce only six of the 194 sent even refer to the  National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its work, and in those instances only cursorily.

 

It would seem that at the very least we might ask:

1. Was the recommended increase of $125 million per annum (1991 dollars) seen as the amount needed to prevent further erosion of the universities'  research infrastructure? If not, what proportion would have been allocated for improvements beyond merely holding the line?

2. What were the effects of the Board's recommendations?

3. Allowing for increases in the demands for research and research training how would that $623 million (2002 dollars) translate to 2003 requirements?

4. Having moved on eight years since 1995 what in fact is the current Commonwealth support for university research infrastructure?

5. In hindsight did the Board and the Boston Consulting Group properly do the job they undertook for the Minister?

Eleven years have passed since the NBEET review and yet the current assessment directed by Dr. Nelson shows no sign of the thoroughness attempted in 1992-93.

 

Will even these basic questions receive answers?

 

And it remains to be seen what further injury the Coalition Government's obsession to bring the universities to heel will achieve.

---

* The membership of the 1992 working party to review higher education research infrastructure funding were:

        Mr Peter Laver, Chair (part time) NBEET

        Prof. MH Brennan, Chair, ARC

        Prof. I Chubb Chair, Higher Education Council

        Prof. JR de Laeter, Deputy V-C, Cutin University

        Prof. JL Lovering, V-C, Flinders University

        Prof. I McCloskey, University of New South Wales

        Prof. B Rawson, Australian National University

        Prof. B. Smith, V-C, University of Western Sydney

        Prof. RHT Smith, V-C, University of New England

        Dr. T Stokes, Counsellor to NBEET

 

Terms of Reference

 

Taking account of the importance of research and research training as a key function of higher education institutions, and the range of research activity and infrastructure  in the system, the Board's advice is sought on:

 

The adequacy of the infrastructure in the higher education system to support high quality research across the breath of academic disciplines.

The likely pattern of research infrastructure needs in the future, and the levels of research infrastructure funding required to meet them.

The mix of a llocative mechanisms for research infrastructure funding at the national level that would best achieve the selectivity, concentration and value to industry that is a focus of Government policy for higher education research.

Will now Kevin Rudd as leader of the Labor opposition together with Steven Smith and Kim Carr as shadow ministers for education and science respectively revisit and update the findings and recommendations of the NBEET review?

[Note: Mr Howard has earmarked $25 million to help build a new stand at the Sydney Cricket Ground. -- "God's in His heaven. All's right with the world," Pippa's Passes]