JUNE 2003
Pockley's Razor
Budget Wrap-up: More Reviews Rather than Research Package

During Dr Brendan Nelson’s year-long review of higher education, the central role of research in universities was stressed time and again. Quality of research was cited as the hallmark of a university’s standing. Expectations ran high that science would win in the May Budget, along with restitution of core funding for universities damaged by the Coalition since 1996.

Secrecy was maintained until leaks appeared in the press a week before the Budget. In the end, however, research got scant attention in the “$1.5 billion package” announced. Treasurer Peter Costello set the government’s pitch on student fees, administration and industrial relations, with only a vague mention of research in his Budget speech: “Universities wishing to increase their research capacity will have greater scope to do so”.

The new programs focus on teaching, deregulating fees, and loans for undergraduates. The package delivers slim pickings in 2003-04 but ramps up towards the fourth and final year.

It has been generally “welcomed” by Vice-Chancellors. The Chair of the Group of Eight Universities, Prof Alan Gilbert of Melbourne University, has been the Minister for Education, Science & Training’s champion in believing he will deliver greater diversity among universities. However, all players acknowledge that the complexities will take a long time to analyse and digest its real effects.

CSIRO Scores Again - For Wrong Reasons

Science did score some news with CSIRO’s commitment to triennial funding deferred for the second time. This was sweetened with a once-off $20 million towards Chief Executive Dr Geoff Garrett’s Flagships program (see pp.23-26 for a feature article that was completed before the Budget).

A well-informed former staffer, who wishes not to be identified, sees “an extraordinarily poor outcome for CSIRO given that the organisation deferred consideration of its triennial budget from 2002 to 2003 so that Garrett had time to develop a stronger case for support”.

Given that Garrett’s “growth strategy” is heavily dependent on increased income from non-government sources, it is notable that the estimated target for external income in last year’s Budget has not been realised. A shortfall of $40 million (to $285 million) results in a deficit of $22 million in 2002-03, exceeding the “boost” for Flagships. A deficit of $30 million is projected for 2003-04.

Garrett was forced to acknowledge that his target has been compressed. Following last year’s performance, estimates of external income for 2003-04 have been revised down by $39 million to $313 million. The former staffer estimates that CSIRO will need to shed at least 5% of its staff if there is no real new money.

CSIRO’s situation also attracted comment from the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS). Acting President, Dr David Denham, says: “We are pretty pleased with continuing the Innovation Statement and extra funding for exploration research by Geoscience Australia [$61 million]. Our real concern relates to CSIRO. We feel that the organisation should focus on long-term strategic research, and that needs the certainty of 3-year funding… and not reliance on external earnings.”

It appears that Howard and the Finance Department were instrumental in requiring another round of reviews before being convinced there is a case for substantial relief. Nelson’s three new reviews are broader in scope than CSIRO and add to the “science mapping” exercise already under way:

• evaluating the 16 programs of the 5-year Innovation Statement, also known as Backing Australia’s Ability (2001), worth around $3 billion in total. Allocations for each program are increasing annually but most of them fall off the Budget’s “out-years” from 2005-07;
• evaluating the 1999 Knowledge and Innovation program; and
• reviewing “models for closer collaboration between major public research agencies (i.e. CSIRO, ANSTO, AIMS) and universities”.

Labor’s shadow minister for science and research, Senator Kim Carr, reckons the government’s intention “is a radical ideological shift within higher education and the research communities to open the door to contestable funding for research agencies [CSIRO, ANSTO and AIMS]. They will be moved from the security of long-term strategic research to the treadmill of the grant machine with its short-term benefits.”

Context Missing

Allocations to science across government portfolios deliver $5.426 billion in 2003-04. Out of an increase of $437 million on 2002-03, about $135 million is a normal correction for inflation and $217 million comes from projected increases in the Innovation Statement. Australasian Science asked the government for details of the latter funds in each year since its inception in 2001-02, but was rebuffed.

Such figures were once part of a comprehensive Science & Technology Statement, published annually from 1988, that included charts of trends in funding, tables comparing Australia with OECD nations and commentary. The Coalition government has abandoned this basic information - a retrograde step.

However, one published table does reinforce the effect of the Coalition’s considerable cuts to R&D and universities in its first Budget (1996-97). While gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) had grown to 0.76% of GDP in Labor’s last year (1995-96), it dropped thereafter to a steady range of 0.64-0.66%. In 2003-04 GERD is projected to be 0.68%.

This ratio is one of several measures for gauging national performance, but it is the only one for which the government provides official figures. As noted by Dr Alex Reisner (see p.42) in response to criticism of his conScience column by Science Minister, Peter McGauran (see p.41), the Group of Eight Universities has shown (from verified analysis of official statistics) that new money from the Innovation Statement has only stemmed the decline of R&D funding as a proportion of GDP.

I asked last month’s conScience columnist, Matt Hall, to weigh the reactions of emerging scientists to the Budget. As President of the 11,500-strong Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, Hall anxiously searched the Budget for any measures that would change his scepticism of a turnaround in Australia’s R&D effort that would persuade him to return from a postdoctoral position overseas after he completes his PhD in chemistry this year.

He concluded: “There is nothing here to encourage early to mid-career scientists to return to academic posts in Australia”. Hall is worried by the partially deregulated HECS and loan schemes as he sees no incentive for students to choose science subjects at university. The government rejected a concerted push by FASTS and other research organisations to reverse the differentially higher HECS charges it introduced in 1996.

Odd Moves

The organisation of marine research in Australia has been a running issue ever since Labor Science Minister, Chris Schacht, tried a decade ago to merge CSIRO’s Division of Marine Research with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), a move that CSIRO fiercely fought off.

Now, the Coalition’s McGauran has announced that AIMS is being affiliated formally with James Cook University (JCU) (both are in Townsville). AIMS Director, Dr Stephen Hall, claims the collaboration, titled “AIMS at JCU”, will become “the Harvard of tropical marine science”.

However, Labor’s Carr believes this move is really a merger that pre-empts Nelson’s review and presages the weakening of CSIRO by merging some of its Divisions with regional universities.

Nuclear issues are seldom far from the news, and the Budget adds to the government’s fixation on “security”. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) sole Budget measure is $17.9 million to keep threatening types (i.e. the greenies) from its premises at Lucas Heights and $2.2 million to start the controversial national repository for radioactive waste (see p.9).

The Australian National University receives $7.3 million towards rebuilding its fire-ravaged Mt Stromlo Observatory, but this is about one-third of its expectations from Howard.

McGauran has achieved a personal ambition that he first aired in Australasian Science last July (p.40) when he revealed that he wanted the National Science & Technology Centre (Questacon) to move from the Arts portfolio to the more appropriate Science Branch of Nelson’s Department. After a year of lobbying Senator Richard Alston agreed to the move - one that, as a former Council member, I applaud.

Peter Pockley