UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT
although the minister responsible advised parliament in
October 2014 that the government was committed to
abolishing both agencies, the present government has been
unable to obtain majority support from the upper house to
repeal the relevant acts.
Not all government research programmes lost out in the
2014–2015 budget. The Antarctic programme was one of its
beneficiaries, with provision for a brand new AU$ 500 million
icebreaker. This move supports the government strategy
of turning the island of Tasmania into a regional hub for
Antarctic research and services.
There has also been a shift in priorities in favour of medical
research, with the planned establishment of an AU$ 20 billion
medical research fund. The fund’s creation hinged on a
government proposal to abolish free medical treatment
under the Medicare system for low-income households,
a system that has been in place for two decades, and to
replace Medicare with a ‘co-payment’ levy. The controversial
new levy was ultimately defeated in parliament. The
proposal is revealing of the current government’s
philosophy that science is a cost to be recovered from users,
rather than a strategic national investment.
The approach to science in the 2014–2015 budget attracted
concern from key stakeholder groups. The budget has
been described as ‘short-sighted’ and ‘destructive’ by
the CSIRO and as ‘worse than we even imagined’ by the
Cooperative Research Centres Association. One of Australia’s
leading professors, Jonathan Borwein, has observed that
‘there is more to science than medical research’. In May
2015, the government announced an additional AU$ 300
million in funding for the National Collaborative Research
Infrastructure Strategy and committed further financial
means in the federal budget for the medical research fund
proposed in the 2014–2015 budget.
Another policy development has emerged from a May 2015
review of the Cooperative Research Centres programme.
The review recommended a sharper commercial focus and
the introduction of shorter-term (three years) co-operative
research projects within the overall programme. These
recommendations have all been accepted by the current
government. Given that no additional funding has been
announced for the programme, the sharper commercial
focus in future may well come at the expense of the public
good at those co-operative research centres oriented
towards areas such as climate change and health.
One recent initiative that has drawn support from the
scientific community is the creation of a National Science
Council to be chaired by the prime minister. Although
the Chief Scientist proposed that this would ‘help provide
strategic thinking for science’, the Academy of Science argued
that the new council would not compensate for the lack of a
science minister. This was a reference to the decision made in
December 2014 to entrust the Minister for Industry with the
portfolio for science.
Announced in October 2014, the government’s Industry
Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda introduces initiatives
to enhance science, engineering and mathematics education
but only in the context of how this can contribute to the
nation’s industrial and economic prospects. There is currently
little policy discussion about the importance of science for
enhancing the nation’s knowledge base or tackling pressing
health and environmental problems of both national and
global dimensions.
Universities have come to dominate public research
Australian science has historically been built around a strong
government research system with four main pillars: the CSIRO,
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation and the Defence Science
and Technology Organisation. State agriculture departments
have historically also played a role in agricultural research.
In recent years, however, the university system has become
the main focus for government-funded research. Over 70%
of the value of public sector research in Australia is now
performed by universities, equivalent to 30% of GERD.
University research is dominated by medical and health
sciences (29%), engineering (10%) and biological sciences
(8%). The government research sector, which now performs
only 11% of GERD, focuses primarily on the same fields, with
the notable addition of agricultural research (19%). The other
shares are medical and health sciences (15%), engineering
(15%) and biological sciences (11%). This research focus is
reflected in the statistics (Figure 27.8).
The government’s role has shifted away from supporting
public research institutions to becoming a major funder,
regulator of standards and assessor of research quality. Many
R&D functions formerly carried out by government research
agencies have been transferred to the private sector or to
universities. This has changed the nature of public funding
away from direct appropriations towards a grant system
operated through agencies such as the Australian Research
Council and the National Health and Medical Research
Council, the Cooperative Research Centres Programme and
the Rural R&D corporations. The latter corporations, which
have been in place now for over 70 years, are a unique
Australian mechanism combining public funding with
matching producer levies. Government policy emphasizes
relevance to industry when allocating competitive research
grants, research block grants, doctoral scholarships and
university admissions (Australian Government, 2014).
708