Prev
Next

Australia: The not-so-clever country

Cameron England

by Cameron England

01 Apr 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Australia, Clever Country, Corporate Australia, Education, Industry, Science

65 comments

Have a guess how many of Australia’s top 50 companies have at their very heart a good idea.

Cartoon: Vintage Michael Atchison

Not mineral resources, selling other people’s goods or repackaging money in increasingly intricate ways, but an actual good idea which spawned the genesis of a new business.

It’s a pretty easy answer - none.

While there are obviously innovators amongst the top 50 companies in Australia, and at an individual level certainly within pretty much all of them, there is a depressing paucity of Australian companies which have sprung from research in any of the hard sciences, to grow into substantial companies.

To be fair, internationally the list of heavyweight companies is dominated by old industries such as oil and gas and banking.

But there is also a fair whack of companies that have sprung from the minds of extremely bright well-educated people to become world-beaters.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the ancients of the IT industry Microsoft and IBM are great examples.

Drug companies such as Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline also do pretty well for themselves.

And the one thing they all have in common is a fundamental need for a strong grounding in hard sciences among their workforce.

Virtually everyone who saw The Social Network would have looked cross-eyed at the algorithm a fictionalised Mark Zuckerberg scrawled on his window - the genesis of one of the antecedents of Facebook.

To have any chance of producing a generation of people who can even seek to work with such concepts in these global industries, let alone create new ideas of their own, there needs to be a strong focus on science education.

But far from being the clever country - a phrase which surely is said most often with heavy irony these days - we are scaling back on support for both science education at a high-school and primary-school level and research funding at the university level and beyond.

It is doubly ironic that our major mining companies have been lamenting the lack of science education in Australia because they too are not able to find adequate candidates with the scientific acumen to fill their workforces.

Federal Education Minister Peter Garrett recently scrapped two programs which boost science teaching in primary and high schools.

Researchers at the National Health and Medical Research Council are also gearing up for a fight to protect their funding.

Presumably this is all in the name of bringing the Federal Budget back into surplus - an aspiration which is much more important in terms of short-term politics than short to mediu- term economics.

The problem is, Australia’s lack of scientific and high-tech achievement is all about short-termism.

Investment in good science education is not something which will pay off within a few electoral cycles. Nor will investment in higher level research.

But one day, most probably well within the next couple of electoral cycles, commodity prices will crash once again.

To be able to weather such storms in the future, we need to be prepared. Australian politicians in the past have not been wary of implementing major structural changes which they knew would bring about long-term benefits.

At the moment, however, we remain much too focussed on the easy money which is flowing from the mining boom, and is not being reinvested in the development of intellectual capital.

It would be great, when the commodities down turn comes (again…and again) to be able to fall back on an intellectual resource which can go some way to filling the gap.

Sadly, if things don’t change soon, the closest I fear we’ll get to this is a mutual lamentation of the situation on Facebook and Twitter.

Most commented

65 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:53am | 01/04/11

      Well said indeed. Here’s a relevant quote:

      “Mr. Dyson described growing up in the late days of the British Empire and seeing that most of his smartest classmates were not—as prior generations had been—interested in developing new forms of electrical and chemical plants, but rather in massaging and managing other people’s money. The result was a loss of England’s science and engineering base.

      “Now, Mr. Dyson said, he was seeing the phenomenon for the second time in his life, in America.”

      In Australia, are our best and brightest going into parasitic professions like law, bureaucracy and money manipulation, which create no value of their own? If so, is there any way to change this?

      Another problem we face is that when our scientists do develop revolutionary technologies, they are often sold overseas. The Silex isotope separation method is a world beater from ANSTO, but it’s a Japanese company that’s actually going to put it into production.

      For some reason, Australians just don’t seem to give science a high priority, unlike for example the Chinese and Japanese. It’s a shame, because we have our share of the finest talents.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      05:31am | 01/04/11

      Many years ago, when the Australian Democrats were relevant, they had one policy which would have done a great deal to improve our situation.

      On the introduction of compulsory superannuation, the Democrats proposed an amendment that would have required super funds to put one half of one percent of all investments into high-tech startups and research.

      At minimal risk, we could have gained multiple billions of dollars of capital for Australian sunrise industries. Even if nine out of ten such businesses failed, the successes would have outweighed the losses.

      Unfortunately, both major parties rejected the idea outright. It’s still not too late to change, though, if someone with vision was to push it through.

    • S.L says:

      07:11am | 01/04/11

      After WW2 is when Australia had it’s chance to excel at industry and it failed badly.
      “We can live off the sheeps back” one of PM Menzies famous catch cries has ruined this country industry wise for it’s lack of vision.
      Look at countries like Sweden or Japan and the companies that hail from there. We are nothing in comparison.
      Today the paranoier over getting your HSC instead of getting a trade should be averted.

    • acotrel says:

      08:26am | 01/04/11

      Isn’t Sophie Mirabella the Shadow Minister for Innovation? Let’s ask her for a few ideas about how Australian industry can be improved?

    • S.L says:

      08:54am | 01/04/11

      Good point acotrel

    • Gregg says:

      11:21am | 01/04/11

      @acotrel,
      You just love Sophie eh!
      But hey there, don’t get caught with your pants down around the ankles too often and so who should be asking in the current government as to what programs ought to be supported.
      Oh, that’s right, they blew billions away and so there’s no money left, real smart Australia that!

    • acotrel says:

      06:19am | 02/04/11

      @Gregg I note that conservatives never mention the billions Costello lost playing the money market?  All he said at the time, was ‘OOPS! SAWREE!’ .  If I remember correctly Costello’s gaff cost us $40B ? - So don’t you talk to me about waste by the ALP.

    • acotrel says:

      06:26am | 02/04/11

      @Gregg I wouldn’t touch Sophie Mirabella with YOUR appendage!  She’s our local member, and we have the joy of hearing her on the ABC every now and then.  Without fail she scratches around trying to make some dirty underhand comment, and the joke is she sounds like a little kid trying to invent a swear word!  You guys should take more notice of the heads on the opposition benches, there’s some absolute purlers!  If you want a real giggle have a look at the two Bishops, what a lovely pair they are?  Fascist Barbie with her killer stare is just hilarious.  I wonder what she’d do if someone told her to get well and truly ?

    • Dan says:

      03:01pm | 03/04/11

      I believe it is more the fact that Australia as a nation glorifies both Sport and the traditional “Tradie” as more desirable roles than the alternative which would be higher education. Those that strive to then attain higher education are pushed into the more desirable roles income-wise of Business and Finance. In Australia, Engineering, IT and Scientific roles are almost looked-down upon and due to a lack of interesting industry opportunities, our best in these Engineering, IT and Scientific roles almost always are pressured to take careers overseas.

    • PJ says:

      05:00am | 01/04/11

      Interesting that you talk about Australia’s Top 50 successful companies, but then want to rule them all out of your discussion because they don’t meet your specific criteria.  Despite being successful, they aren’t good enough because they haven’t adpated or evolved to their success from your narrowly defined parameters. 

      You may be successful, but attention, Australia’s top 50 companies - you don’t meet Cameron’s standards of success.

      Then of all things, after lamenting lack of ingenuity, let’s discuss it on Big America’s iconic company institutions.

      Reply

    • james milton says:

      09:01am | 01/04/11

      His point is they don’t innovate, and everything they do is based on the short term.

      It seems you missed the entire gist of the article.

    • PJ says:

      09:47am | 01/04/11

      Right James, there is no innovation in the top 50 Australian companies.  Can you believe you actually said it, let alone believe that to be the case?

    • PTom says:

      10:37am | 01/04/11

      @PJ,

      We may have no companies but we do have innovation like the CSIRO WIFI.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:24am | 01/04/11

      Two major problems here. One, the Australian government (both parties when in power) willingness to slash and burn research budgets not just in universities but institutions such as CSIRO when times get tough. Oddly enough, they can find millions of dollars for middle class welfare. Second, Australian business unwillingness to take risks on inventions and ideas with the result that the inventor goes overseas for capital funding and manufacturing facilities. It is ironic that our endowment in natural resources actually retards national development.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:30am | 01/04/11

      Investment in good science education is not something which will pay off within a few electoral cycles. Nor will investment in higher level research

      I’m a scientist - you’ll never become rich doing that!  Professional interest and satisfaction won’t feed you in your old age..

      ’

    • Knemon says:

      10:23am | 01/04/11

      @ Shane - I agree, it’s a pathetic situation. I don’t blame the businesses, the fault lies squarely with the government, not just the current one but every preceding one as well.

      About thirty years ago, I personally knew a robotics whiz here in Australia, he knocked on every government door he could for assistance and was told at each turn that his ideas were a waste of time and money. So what were his options? He had to go overseas, he is now based in Seattle, running his own robotics business, employing more than 400 people, and he is highly regarded by his peers. I’m certain this would be just one of many similar stories.

      I fully agree with your last sentence. Barry Jones once showed me his watch that was made totally from Australian exported materials that we got 20 cents for, we re-imported the finished product back into Australia for $200.

      BTW - I love the headline Cameron, says it all really.

    • Against the Man says:

      05:51am | 01/04/11

      Have you seen the current Government of Australia? Gilltard, Swan, Rudd, Roxon, Garrett? Not exactly the brain’s trust. Don’t expect much from them.

      Reply

    • Scotchy says:

      06:54am | 01/04/11

      Here here !
      Unfortunately Australian business is still reading the well known book “In search of mediocrity” (go look it up). Until we have govt with a long term vision and a grasp of how to nuture bright young minds and reward companies for innovation, then this country is doomed (commercially) to be a raw materials exporter which lets the other countries innovate.
      Geez, case in point, I was on http://www.alibaba.com yesterday and I dont recall seeing any aussie exporters there at all!

    • TChong says:

      07:42am | 01/04/11

      Speaking of “brains trust”, I prefer the shadow “Minister of Innovation”- who finds innovative ideas like the internet just too complex for her to get a clue about, much like the current seat warmer for Turnbull, 1 Vote Tony.

    • HappyCynic says:

      07:44am | 01/04/11

      Don’t forget the blatant sneering at science on the side of the Opposition.  It’s no wonder the best and brightest minds go into non-controversial arenas to work.  One side promotes mediocrity, the other just insults anything resembling intelligent thought.

    • James1 says:

      09:51am | 01/04/11

      “Here here !”

      Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:26am | 01/04/11

      It certainly is frightening to me that both Abbott and Gillard pander to anti-intellectualism and legitimise negative attitudes about elites. I’m not one of them, but the more “elites” in this country the better.

    • Sambobs says:

      07:44am | 01/04/11

      although I agree with the angle of this blog, I can think of one company that has happened through a “good idea”
      Cochlear, anybody?

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:36am | 01/04/11

      @ Chongy ‘Speaking of “brains trust”, I prefer the shadow “Minister of Innovation”- who finds innovative ideas like the internet just too complex for her to get a clue about, much like the current seat warmer for Turnbull, 1 Vote Tony’

      Not everybody can be a ‘tech-head’, what can we expect from a party which is lead by a luddite - INNOVATION?  The only innovation Sophie has ever done is attempt to dream up a new brand of poisonous rhetoric, and she failed dismally!

    • Ben C says:

      12:51pm | 01/04/11

      @ Sambobs

      I had exactly the same thought, but they sit outside the top 50, so that’s why they got no acknowledgement.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:03am | 01/04/11

      Creating the next world-beating innovator requires more than just an idea.

      But an idea is difficult enough. I’m sure if you spent a day brainstorming all possible things you wouldn’t come up with much.

      As soon as you thought you had a good idea you’d then need to have the technical expertise to get it into existence.

      Then you’d need a company to fund it. This is where most people will fall over. The old guard will try to steal it from you or most funders won’t be interest because it’s too risky.

      Then you’ll find that the Australian market isn’t big enough to support it so you’ll have to go overseas.

      You’ll find that most successful great ideas were the freaks rather than the norm.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:44am | 01/04/11

      @Tubesteak There’s an old book around titled’ the social relations of science’.  It suggests that authoritarianism stifles creativity.  And I suggest that’s one of the major problems with the culture which exists in most Australian workplaces.  You can be creative and generate excellent ideas, but even in an environment in which the major players are all scientists and engineers, you won’t be encouraged to publish.  More likely someone else will claim credit for your work! The area of industrial democracy is where Workchoices was so wrong, and it’s needed if we are ever to become a learning creative society.

    • PTom says:

      10:35am | 01/04/11

      To have a larger Australian market requires what? University and Research Labs

      The only way I know to have more University and Research Labs is
      - More people.
      - More Finance/Invest Companies this could be done be giving tax breaks and law changes to investment companies that provide overseas funding e.g. a local bank setting up a science invest arm that gets funding from overseas.

    • Eskimo says:

      08:33am | 01/04/11

      CSL comes in at No. 17 by market capitalisation, so you might want a quick fact check next time.

      After that Cochlear comes in at No. 64. I would have thought two bio-medical companies in the top 100 isn’t too bad.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:50am | 01/04/11

      Whatever happened to the Materials Research Laboratories?  Don’t we need that stuff any more?

    • TimB says:

      09:35am | 01/04/11

      Hey Eskimo, do you have a link to the list? It’s something I used to keep my eye on from time to time. The Telegraph used to produce one I believe but now no longer does. And I can’t find an ordered listing on ASX- It’s all alphabetical.

    • Squeeze says:

      11:04am | 01/04/11

      CSL is a privitisation of a government enterprise.

      Bishop power steering valves are in 20% of the world’s cars.

      Then there’s Barry Marshal and Robin Warren.  (What, the names Barry and Warren too embarassing?)

      There’s plenty of examples but y’now engineering and science is dorky so we and the media only care when we get the guilts or begin to hear our own self congratulatory BS. US, Germany, China, South Korea, Japan etc: powered by what you all call “nerds”. Australia is powered by whoever has the ticker to grab the wealth (like from our resources and farmland). Grabalia. We have never matured as much as other countries had to and taken control of our destiny. Hey, at least we’re tanned, happy and free.

      Cultural cringe? A media desperate for integrity? Why give a toss if you’re embarrassed by Steve Irwin, the Singing Budgie, Rolf Harris, Russell Crow and Bazza.  They’re bringing in the $$$$. Reject the moronic group think and take them for what they are.  Germaine Greer, Julian Assange, Rupert Murdoch, John Pilger, etc.

      Do the right thing and shake hands with a “nerd” and say: thank you for putting up with my crap.

    • ken hudson says:

      08:47am | 01/04/11

      The other aspect of this story is that we often do not believe that other Australians have great business building ideas until they (the ideas)  take off overseas. I have created an original idea about a different way of thinking but people are often surprised that i am Australian.
      Are we naturally conservative or just insecure as a nation?

      Reply

    • james milton says:

      08:54am | 01/04/11

      Australia is really the lucky country.

      The economy rests on 2.5 pillars.

      1) Digging holes in the ground and shipping it overseas, luckily Australia is closer to China than Brazil.

      2) Selling passports/citizenship to students for paying money to study here. If they study, they get citizenship.

      2.5) The property industry, 100% reliant on said students and migrants who may never contribute anything to society at all. Family reunion programs where old people come over and go on the pension right away, along with Aussies who have been working and paying taxes all their lives. Unfair, and stupid.

      2) and 2.5) are slowing down. When China stops building it’s Ghost Cities, you can forget 1) as well.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339536/Ghost-towns-China-Satellite-images-cities-lying-completely-deserted.html

      Australia: The dumb country.

      Reply

    • Al Chunk says:

      02:21pm | 01/04/11

      Bit harsh “Australia: The dumb country. ” but I would hold that AUstralia is lead by people that are whizzes at bureaucratic processes and procedures but unable to understand science, innovation and production.  Culturally we think Scientists and Engineers are just car mechanics - aren’t they?  Empty words about being a smart country represents our government’s belief that ignoring science and engineering can be glossed over with a sound bite and one meeting with the chief scientist in almost 3 years.  Germany’s Engineers have status equivalent to Doctors, which may be why they are world leaders in exporting high cost manufactured technical products.  We do have great commercial scientists and engineers but the ones that stay here only have construction and mining industries to work in, but take a look at the parent companies of our large technical construction companies, they are mostly German.  Another example that our elite, those with access to the piblic and private tills have no regard for thinking, creating and making, just consuming and counting.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      09:13am | 01/04/11

      I honestly can’t find anything to disagree with in this article. Sometimes I wish we had longer election cycles just so there was a more long term focus whoever was in power.

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      11:24am | 01/04/11

      Yes, that is what we need, give the ALP more time to rort and destroy the country. Long term focus. From ‘07 till now can we list the outstanding achievements of the great Federal ALP. Please I need to know what this government is doing that is deserving of them collecting a paycheck.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      01:17pm | 01/04/11

      my point is, that if you gave governments more time (doesn’t matter which party btw) - perhaps they would be less self-serving with less of a “next election is coming up soon” outlook.

      They would be more likely to make the unpopular, but utilitarian decisions early in the term, knowing full well the electorate would forget and/or start to reap the benefits of good decisions before the next election.

      In truth I think we would see governments spend about the same amount of time in power as they typically do in Oz - (about a decade, give or take depending on competency of the opposition), but they would spend less of that time on elections. We would have 10 year two term governents as oppossed to the 10 year three term governments.

    • Against the Man says:

      03:58pm | 01/04/11

      The length of terms isn’t going to change how some governments run. Linking performance to pay and pensions would be the way to go. So for each term they are elected their pay goes up and if they get in 3 terms in a row they get a nice pension, if not they get a very basic payout. Like the private sector it should be a reward for performance. If Gillard knew she had to be for 3 terms to get a decent pension she and her mates might be doing more. I mean seriously Hot Tub what have they done? I would shut myself up if I could see some mind blowing policy. Sort out health or the asylum seeker issue or find a way to stop giving us one tax after another. Governments need to work to make our lives better because we elected them (maybe not in Gilltard’s case but you know what I mean). I’m very anti ALP because they don’t manage anything well and it is all about unions and their influences. I mean the ALP talks about spending more than the Libs and all the usual blah, blah BS. Look at health, millions spent on nurse practitioners, Super clinics, ‘new’ beds etc but there hasn’t been much difference in the stats and there is no future planning for recruiting more nurses and doctors. So why spend and not get results?  It is all one big PR stunt at our expense! Ask Roxon to release the cost analysis on Super Clinics, the rough data shows millions spent to treat minor issues in only a few thousand people, such waste but what is the motivation to get fair results when you still get payed well for doing a crap job..

    • Romana Challans says:

      09:45am | 01/04/11

      We at The Serval Project (having won a round of The New Inventors, and appeared on numerous media outlets with our ‘brilliant’ idea (their words), for mobile telephony without infrastructure, using existing handset technology,  for remote, rural, regional areas, and disaster relief (think bushfires, earthquakes, floods), are in a constant struggle for funding.

      This is despite everyone who encounters our research ad early prototype saying how it could revolutionise communications. We aren’t competing with Telcos, we are there where Telcos can’t be.

      But research funding in this country is incredibly difficult. In Silicon Valley, we would be easily among multi millionaire startup potential (so we have been reliably informed). We want to develop here. Without some support & encouragement from Flinders University we would not have got this far. Serious funding needed to really develop this is an ongoing battle, that takes resources away from much needed research time.

      Not the clever country, sadly.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      10:00am | 01/04/11

      I have to be a bit circumspect, but I am aware of a depressing example.  A government organisation was looking for a particular type of technology.  They were scouting the world, leaving no stone unturned, until someone from Scandinavia expressed amazement and told them that they had the world leader in that technology in Australia.  Which is true.  What is truly depressing is that the Australian world leader still does not have a contract from the government organisation.  It will just not accept that Australian technology could be the best in spite of the fact that it has been sold to many similar organisations overseas.

      We have recently seen another example here.  A week or two ago our pet zoo of climate change denialists were saying that we should not do anything until someone ovwerseas develops technology which we should adopt.  The idea of developing technology here and exporting it is just too scary for the scared weird little guys.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      10:57am | 01/04/11

      As usual, iansand’s sanctimonius & snide attitude causes him to get it wrong, yet again.

      Buying the technology from overseas was an option I floated yes. But what you chose to ignore is that I also had no problem with the government investing in said technology itself.

      What I do have a problem with is your idiotic support of a plan to artificially distort a market in an attempt force people to purchase inefficient versions of that technology.

      Again for you, simplified and summarised because you simply don’t get it otherwise:

      Cut the idiotic green subsidies and programs. Then invest all money saved into pure R&D.
      If and when the technology is ready (and by ready, I mean affordable and efficient enough), unleash it on the market and let people gravitate naturally to it. Or, *if* other countries beat us to it, buy the tech off them. Whichever comes first.

      Now you tell me, just what the hell is wrong with this approach?

    • iansand says:

      11:47am | 01/04/11

      Memo to TimmyB - It is rarely, if ever, about you.  I really don’t read your stuff, including this.

    • TimB says:

      12:04pm | 01/04/11

      No iansand, you don’t read my stuff because you can’t handle the mental effort that comes with trying to understand or properly debate an opinion that differs from your own. There’s a few others here that suffer from the same problem.

      That’s why despite your self-inflated view of your own superiority, you’re really just a giant tosser.

    • iansand says:

      12:32pm | 01/04/11

      5 reasons not to read TimmyB’s stuff:

      1.  Never enlightening.
      2   Never amusing
      3   Never original
      4   Always self-centred
      5   Usually tediously prolix

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:55pm | 01/04/11

      Somebody read something that TimB wrote? When? Damn, missed it.

    • TimB says:

      01:50pm | 01/04/11

      Always nice to have you prove my point, thanks iansand.

      It’s hilarious how the types of people who claim “I never read what xxxx writes” still manage to have an opinion on it nonetheless.

      But I suppose that’s one of the hallmarks of being an arrogant tosser.

    • iansand says:

      03:33pm | 01/04/11

      Mmmmm.  Looks like descending to TimmyB’s level has not worked.  He is still in tanty mode.  I will revert to plan A.

    • TimB says:

      08:12am | 02/04/11

      Plan A…that would be the “I’m incapable of engaging in a proper debate because I know Tim actually has a valid point, so I will go back to pretending to ignore him” plan?

      Good idea. It’s less embarrasing for you. You’re still a tosser either way though. Not much you can do about that I’m afraid.

    • Martin Hopes says:

      11:28am | 02/04/11

      iansand @ 12:32pm - I t would be difficult to argue against point number 4

    • MF says:

      10:56am | 01/04/11

      Me and my PhD are tired of the funding situation in this country. ARC success rates are less than 20% (even worse if you’re an early career researcher) and if you do somehow manage to succeed you’ll only get half the money you asked for - if you’re lucky. Way to support the future scientists of Australia!

      I, like so many others in their early post-PhD research careers am now looking to move overseas at the earliest possible opportunity. It’s a shame, I would like to stay here. But with the government cutting budgets left, right and centre, and the general attitude from the public that “academics are elitist snobs”/“you don’t do anything useful, why should my taxpayer dollars fund you?”, why would you want to stay?

      Reply

    • Talon says:

      01:39pm | 01/04/11

      A poor education system is the whole problem.  We have a system of low quality, expectation and pass values.  Children go to high school without being able to spell, read or even wright in anything resebling letters.  Every day I am confronted with school leavers who are not able to do the most basic of math in their head.  Not even adding 3.20 and 3.20 (no you just over charged me.  It is not 7.40 aaaagggghhh).

      We need an education system able to cope with rising numbers and varied ability levels.  One that can expose the student to many possible outcomes rather then just getting through school with a mark and attempting to get whatever job you can.  Science, chemistry, Engineering (wow thats how a iPad works).

      Here is an idea based on science fiction books that can be taken up.  Teach them properly in primary school with basic social and communication skills.  Develope an online teaching tool.  This can be at a localised centre away from schools and as an alternative to.  The childs interests can be assessed and encouraged and incorporated into the training schedule.  With qualified assessments in chosen fields, apprentiships can be applied / bid for. “Anne McCaffrey - talents of earth series.”

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      01:59pm | 01/04/11

      I hope the spelling of this post was meant ironically.

    • Talon says:

      02:29pm | 01/04/11

      On the ball are you.  Yes, in the first paragraph only.  Good catch.  I am at work and was in a hurry later in the piece.  A Genuine typo with my attention being split.

    • persephone says:

      05:34pm | 01/04/11

      And the third. But who’s counting?

      BTW, the stories of being confronted by school leavers who lack basic skills point to the successes of our system.

      Once upon a time, no matter how ‘clever’ you were, the majority of students left school at 15.

      Which meant that you, are an employer, had a good chance of picking up someone with half a brain in that age group.

      Now the majority go on to VCE and a large chunk of them go on to some kind of higher learning.

      So the average school leaver you see is someone who either can’t be educated or doesn’t want to be.

      And thus they tend not to be the sharpest tools in the shed, because the sharper tools are off getting a trade or a profession.

    • Talon says:

      04:22pm | 04/04/11

      Hmmm.  3rd would be later.

      Also, Ahhh.  Thanks….?

      I often wonder how success can be measured when coupled with such drastic failure.  Getting students to stay in school was a good reform however if the standard of early education is lowered then the percentage of students dropping out increases and their capability decreases.

      With the new wave of young baby boomers this may widen the gap between the employed and the unemployable, putting an increased burden upon welfare / dole.

      You are also right that some are unable to cope in the mainstream education system and an effective alternative needs to found.  After such low expectation and standards of teaching in early education (this is not the teachers fault, do not get me wrong) only the quick and adaptable succeed.

      I do not believe that “survival of the fittest” is the new Australian cry over “fair go mate… here is a hand”

    • Joan Bennett says:

      02:15pm | 01/04/11

      They don’t want people to be scientifically literate anymore.  If they did, all the young people would understand that plants need carbon dioxide…

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      02:35pm | 01/04/11

      I think young people do understand that, Joan.

      They also understand that too much of anything isn’t always good.

      No one is advocating the complete removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, so you don’t have to worry about the plants.

    • Andrew says:

      02:36pm | 01/04/11

      Good article, there is not enough encouragement of innovation and creativity in regards to business. We need to stop relying on digging stuff up and start making things.

      Reply

    • Hanrahan was worng says:

      03:07pm | 01/04/11

      Nonsense - as if mining very efficiently doesn’t take science and engineering expertise - we export skills in the areas that we are strong in around the world.  A similar situation in agriculture.  Just because these industries don’t fit the definitoin of some inner-city as innovation doesn’t mean they are sunset industries.  The benefits of trade actualy require specialsation not replicaiton.  As another point, having some of the best minds design regulaiton on the banking sector may have helped some countries such as the US.  This is undergraduate stuff.

      Reply

    • Squeeze says:

      02:22pm | 06/04/11

      Excellent point Hanrahan.  And our industries have formed good partnerships with the likes of CSIRO through enterprises like Australian Wool Innovation.

      But does it take 20 million people to run a mine, a farm and some tourism and education facilities.  At what point does the army of accountants, auditors, public servants, financiers and lawyers and their retailers, real estate agents etc become just a wealth distribution mechanism busily guilding the lilly.  Or worse - paying one group of bureaucrats or lawyers to help people dig holes and another group of bureaucrats lawyers to help other people fill them in.

    • Renata says:

      08:09pm | 01/04/11

      The main problem is that we allow unqualified teachers into the classroom.
      It is beyond belief that a person who completed studies in environment can work as a maths lecturer at the uni.teachers of some mickey mouse subjects like home economics or personal development are supposed to teach maths at school. Modern times require that science subject is divided into maths, physics and chemistry. All of these subjects should be compulsory throuout the education system
      We haven’t got many candidates for studying science or maths at the ubi because these subjects are not popular at school due to the lack of qualified teachers.
      And, some lawyers-politicians decided spme years ago that Australi can live of services so we do not need to be educated; just play smart arses around around the world selling our marketing techniques.
      So no industry is needed.
      Just recently a uni lecurer told the students that engineers do not need maths nowadays because everything is on the Internet. So it is enough to spend some time on clicking to become a brain surgeon.

      Reply

    • Don says:

      08:53am | 02/04/11

      If we need a model to look at then Japan and Taiwan are probably not bad places to start. Both have essentially no natural resources and yet punch way above their weight economically as well as technologically.

      Reply

    • Anthony says:

      10:27am | 02/04/11

      “Investment in good science education is not something which will pay off within a few electoral cycles” - but the problem is that it won’t happen THIS election cycle, and thanks to the short sighted media and our pathetic governments who are trying to win the 24 hour news cycle that they created, that’s all they’re going to care about.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      04:27pm | 28/11/11

      Australia is now nothing but a bogan infested quarry, and grossly uncompetitive at doing anything but digging up dirt and shipping it to China. All innovation is dead. Every industry except mining is in a drawn-out recession.

      I’m a 36 year old Australian, who has been around the traps, and in the last year I have moved to California. I can’t see myself ever moving back; if you’re involved in any form of engineering that isn’t directly used by mining, you’ll probably be forced to leave Australia due to unemployment.

      Yes, it really is that bad. When the next commodities downturn hits, Australia is going to be a social and economic basket case. The longer the mining boom continues, the more young people will neglect their education so they can ‘go work in the moines’, and the worse the result will be when the eventual downturn comes.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter