The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, is on the right track with Knowledge Nation. The Labor Party received a report this week from a committee it had appointed to examine ways in which Australia could become what is now called a “”Knowledge Nation”. The committee brought to forward a number of uncosted recommendations that ranged from higher retention rates, so that 90 per cent of teenagers have Year 12 or higher, to the doubling of research and development financing by 2010. Other recommendations included the creation of 1000 commercial and university research positions to encourage Australian scientists and researchers to return home, significant increases in public funding of universities, the boosting of online education and the making of access to digital broadband a national priority.
An immediate attack has been made up on the program because it is uncosted and represents just a wish-list, in the words of Prime Minister John Howard.
Some of the reaction indicates the difficulty of the Opposition’s task. On one hand, many people are crying out for leadership and vision and a movement away from the bean-counting mentality. On the other hand, many people are shouting where is the money coming from.
The critical thing about Knowledge Nation is not so much that there is a detailed program of action with details of costs, but rather that there is a change in attitude on the part of at least one side of politics in Australia. The new attitude rejects what has historically been a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in Australian life and a recognises that the pursuit of education, knowledge, science and technology will bring material and spiritual riches to Australia.
There is an answer to the question of where will the money come from. It must come from changing priorities in government spending. Understandably an Opposition will not highlight the areas where priorities will change for the worse because people directly affected might change their vote They will probably see no immediate benefit in a long-term strategy to improve education and technology. However, if Australia is to prosper in relation to comparable countries it has no choice but to make some sacrifices in the immediate future in order to have a rosier picture in the more distant future.
It is inescapable that Australia is falling behind comparable countries in the OECD with respect to research and development, information and communications technology and education. We can no longer sit on our laurels.
On education alone, some estimates have put it that Australia needs to spend a $4 billion extra a year just to get to the OECD average. But removing a the lesser developed OECD countries, we need to spend $12 billion extra a year just to stay in the major league. Other countries it; so must Australia.
Given Australian industries’ congenital reluctance to spend on research and development, only government can do the job. Sure, private enterprise would do a better job but that is on the false supposition that it would actually attack the task. It is not a question of where will the money come from and can we afford it, but a recognition that a Australia cannot afford not to invest far more strongly in education and research.
Nit-picking over precise funding details has been the Government’s instant response. It is a poor one. Rather the Government should explain what its vision for Australia is. If that vision does not include a government commitment to and strategy for the turning around of Australia’s plummeting education, science and technology performance, then it does not deserve to continue government.
The Coalition, at least until about a year ago, had proved itself as a very good short-term manager of the economy. But it must now do more. It must express a vision for the long-term future. Its task is to match or better Knowledge Nation, not to pick holes in it.