A Stinging Editorial Rebuke from The Age on the Coalition's Decimation of Academic Mathematics. (February 10, 2007)

    It's been a long time in coming but just maybe Kevin Rudd and his advisor Maxine McKew, Kim Carr and his Chief of Staff and Steven Smith and his team will think on it... hard.

As for the Coalition, not so long as Prime Minister John Howard keeps his head lock on what he conceives to be the quasi-subversive "soft-left" academics, will the universities be allowed to lead into a knowledge economy.

The Age's editorial, "The Federal Government needs to urgently plug the brain drain in maths and science" is the immediate outgrowth from a forum held this past Wednesday at the Australian Academy of Science's Shine Dome, Why the mathematical sciences matter.

To The Age's editorial writer the equation is simple, "Funding shortfalls + decline in teachers = fewer graduates. This is not a linear equation; it feeds back on itself as a vicious circle. The result is that Australia is going to be the big loser."

And the year long review by an international group is once again cited (Critical Skills for Australia's Future National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia) to bring home the point.

"It requires little vision, for anyone willing to look, to recognise that there is a train wreck on the horizon."

But do either of the major political parties really care to look critically past the fringe of the election carpet?

Julie Bishop, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, was due to speak at the National Press Club and so sent her Parliamentary Secretary, Pat Farmer to give a few minutes of his time to tell, in arithmetical detail the ninety or so mathematicians and statisticians of his feats of physical endurance as an ultramarathoner and stair climber. He went on to recite what the government had allocated in funding but gave no indication what may (or may not) be forthcoming. He ended telling them they were a good thing and then shot through - the concept of actually listening to what the scheduled speakers might have to say or any discussion engendered appeared to be of no interest and no representative of DEST remained.

Labor's shadow minister for industry, innovation, science and research, Senator Kim Carr, gave his views and left the distinct impression that his priorities were directly correlated to the sequence of their order as writ in his portfolio. He spent considerable time in bagging the government's approach and rounded on the current skills shortages.

As has previously  been the case, there was no indication as to just what Labor was going to go about rectifying the degeneration of skilling and the tertiary sector. And considering that in 2001 Senator Carr was one of the most vociferous proponents of the Senate report on higher education, Universities in Crisis, his address was disappointing, and it wasn't helped by his discussion of the proposed Research Quality Framework. In fairness he did ridicule the government's unworkable proposal to include an assessment of the impact of each research program on national productivity, and was damning of the government's allocation of some $85M to fund an RQF that would be allocating some $500M (his figures, it's $87M and the allocation is probably closer to $600M).

However, he left the distinct impression that Labor would introduce some from of RQF rather than scrapping a concept that no one had demonstrated has merit. That a rethink as to the allocation of block funding isn't the issue, coming up with a significant improvement is.

Neither Pat Farmer nor Senator Carr referred to the National Strategic Review of Mathematical Sciences Research in Australia and its recommendations. Those 18 recommendations are clearly stated, it does not take an expert in the analysis of obfuscatory writing to winkle out what is being recommended. Will Ms Bishop's department set out to organise a critical assessment of the recommendations and consult with the universities and other interested parties with a view to reversing the mess? Even deaf Freddy would be able to hear the sniggers from the bowels of DEST.

As for Labor, perhaps if Kevin Rudd to were to take a direct interest in pursuing such a review in might happen, but even if you are smarter than the average bear you've still got to have an active interest, and so far that's yet to be demonstrated.

A note in passing: one of the invited speakers was Peter Laver, who was listed as Vice-president of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and while he is noteworthy for a number deeds of public service a bit of ancient history has its interests.

 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.

Peter Laver was chair of the working party that did the review.

The NBEET recommended an immediate increase above the then $342 million provided by the Commonwealth for university research infrastructure of 37%, i.e. an additional $125 million per annum. According to Reserve Back of Australia overall inflation between 1992 and 2006 was 43.5%. ($342+$125) x 1.435 = $670 million 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.

It's more than time to revisit this matter objectively and as a matter of urgency based on 21^st century requirements.

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 allocative 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.