Research and Education -- While Labor and the Coalition Have Little to Learn from Marcel Marceau, Outgoing AD Senator Natasha Stott Despoja Gives Them Something to Chew On. (November 22, 2007)

It may be a bit late in the game, but Australian Democratic Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has a take home message that ought to give those who may be leading the nation in a couple of days pause to take her message to heart and mind:  "Australia is well-placed to build on our creative strengths but we need visionary leadership to invest in our innovative capacity."

She goes on to state the bleedin' obvious, but then makes a few suggestions as to how to go about repairing the damage:

The Howard Government's science and innovation policy has not truly seized the opportunities arising from good economic times. In this field, if you're not at the cutting edge, you get left behind – and this goes for policy too.

Australia is ranked 16 out of 30 in the OECD on gross expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP – which is poor when you consider that our economy has been performing so strongly.

For its part, the Australian Labor Party has given vague promises of renewed investment but offers little fundamental change from the current Government's approach.

A media release by Senator Kim Carr, Labor's spokesman for Research and Innovation today outlined Labor's plans and while it is certainly more promising than what the Coalition has bestowed on Australia it also leaves considerable room to allow it to incorporate the suggestions from Senator Stott Despoja:

 Review existing Commonwealth support to identify options for amalgamating programs, thereby minimising bureaucratic red tape and making the suite of government programs more user�]friendly and flexible.

To further reduce the administrative burden associated with government support, the Democrats would scrap the Research Quality Framework and consider an alternative approach for rewarding excellence.

Australia needs to better fund our top scientists so that they spend more time conducting research and less time filling out grant applications.
The Australian Democrats would lengthen the maximum term of basic research competitive grants to seven years to give researchers more financial certainty.

[I]ndexation rates for university block funding would also be increased to accurately reflect growth in the CPI.

[P]rovide a much needed injection of $500 million over five years into [combining existing research fellowships and awards into one competitive research fellowship scheme, with varying rates depending on seniority.] [T]his fellowship scheme, could fund over 300 Federation Fellows or an even greater number of junior or mid�-level researchers.

[And] peg salary support included under competitive grant programs at the salary level plus the national average institutional on�-cost amount.

The Senator also suggests setting up a training scheme for Australian venture capitalists so that the current prosperity floating around the nation might be put to better use in the fostering the future of the nation's economy. But she suggests that CSIRO get an injection of an addition $600 million over the next four years.

She does not make any suggestions as to what directions CSIRO might take to overcome the legacy of the Howard/Geoffrey Garrett era, but she wants to set some highly specific national priorities for the federal government to fund:

$100 million to fund research into national priorities. These priorities would be much more specific than either the current National Research Priorities or the CSIRO Flagships – for example, a solution for dry land salinity or a cure for melanoma. [A]n independent panel and grants would be awarded on a competitive basis. ...government funding would be used for projects with maximum national value [and] could serve as a unique catalyst for long�]term applied research in Australia.

The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) through its Executive Director, Bradley Smith, gave the proposals of the Australian Democrats a strong endorsement but also asks that the vision go beyond Australia's shore line and beyond mere technology:

The Democrats proposed "technology challenge" is a thoughtful response to the lack of high level strategic thinking that goes into addressing risks and problems.

It is not enough for Governments to identify research priorities. Australia needs smarter approaches to identify national priorities and important problems and then ensure there are the right resources, including research, to address them.

But smart solutions can come from anywhere and such a program should not be limited to Australian researchers but also be a mechanism for attracting the best solutions and people from around the world.

The Democrats proposal should not rely on technological responses alone, but its emphasis on a process for clearly identifying worthwhile social, environmental and economic problems is laudable.