tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/ian-chubb-4015/articlesIan Chubb – The Conversation2023-11-09T19:10:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2138742023-11-09T19:10:48Z2023-11-09T19:10:48ZThe unsafe Safeguard Mechanism: how carbon credits could blow up Australia’s main climate policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558538/original/file-20231109-17-ocq6en.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C699%2C3642%2C2512&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/person-holding-black-and-silver-lighter-KaFm4vn1RCg">James Adams/Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A time bomb is ticking inside the Albanese government’s climate policy. When it explodes, Australia will fall short of its climate targets and leave a gaggle of investors shirtless.</p>
<p>The problem arises from a poorly understood aspect of the net zero transition: carbon credits or offsets. </p>
<p>The centrepiece of Australia’s climate policy is a carbon pricing scheme known as the <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-Safeguard-Mechanism#:%7E:text=The%20Safeguard%20Mechanism%20applies%20to,manufacturing%2C%20transport%2C%20and%20waste.">Safeguard Mechanism</a>. It places caps on the emissions of around 220 of the country’s largest mining, gas and industrial facilities, based on the emissions intensity of their operations. Every year through to 2030 these caps will decline by between 1% and nearly 5%.</p>
<p>The facilities have two ways to keep their emissions within the caps. They can reduce them, or they can buy and surrender one of two forms of credits, the most significant being <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/Forms%20and%20resources/Planning%20a%20project/Part%203/content_australian_carbon_credit_units_accus_.html#:%7E:text=One%20ACCU%20represents%20one%20tonne,accordance%20with%20the%20relevant%20rules.">Australian carbon credit units</a> (ACCUs) issued under Australia’s carbon offset scheme.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>How the offset scheme works</h2>
<p>Under the scheme, landholders, energy users and other emitters can register projects that avoid emissions or sequester carbon dioxide in trees, soils or geological formations. Those who do so in line with specified rules receive ACCUs, a <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">tradeable financial instrument</a>.</p>
<p>Each carbon credit unit is supposed to represent additional and permanent abatement of greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to one tonne of CO₂.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-new-dawn-becoming-a-green-superpower-with-a-big-role-in-cutting-global-emissions-216373">Australia's new dawn: becoming a green superpower with a big role in cutting global emissions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Reducing the emissions of facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism is likely to be difficult and expensive, at least in the short term, as most are in the oil and gas, coal and other mining sectors. For some, the only viable way to significantly reduce emissions is to stop production.</p>
<p>Carbon credits enable these facilities to meet their obligations by effectively paying someone else who can cut emissions more cheaply. In theory, allowing facilities with high abatement costs to use offsets lowers the economy-wide cost of reducing greenhouse gases, without sacrificing climate outcomes. </p>
<p>But for the scheme to work, the ACCUs must have “integrity”: they must represent an actual reduction in emissions that would not have otherwise occurred. And to the extent the reduction involves sequestration of CO₂ in a sink (such as a forest), it must stay in the sink permanently.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/making-money-green-australia-takes-its-first-steps-towards-a-net-zero-finance-strategy-214063">Making money green: Australia takes its first steps towards a net zero finance strategy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since the offset scheme started in 2011, <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/project-register">137 million ACCUs</a> have been issued. Three-quarters of these have come from three project types: <a href="https://greencollar.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Avoided-Deforestation-QA_.pdf">avoided deforestation in western New South Wales</a>, <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Choosing-a-project-type/Opportunities-for-industry/landfill-and-alternative-waste-treatment-methods/Capture-and-combustion-of-landfill-gas">combustion of methane from landfills</a> (largely to create electricity), and human-induced <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Pages/Forms%20and%20resources/Regulatory%20Guidance/Sequestration%20guidance/Human-Induced-Regeneration-projects-and-how-they-affect-the-management-of-land-at-a-property-scale.aspx">regeneration of native forests</a> in arid areas of inland Australia. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.carbonintegrity.au/media-and-publications">research</a> shows that most of these projects have low integrity. People are getting carbon credits for not clearing forests that <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/analysis-finds-300m-paid-to-farmers-to-keep-trees-they-were-unlikely-to-clear-20210920-p58t4u.html">were never going to be cleared anyway</a>, for growing trees that already exist, for growing forests in places that will never sustain them, and for operating electricity generators at landfills that would have operated anyway.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1542070091252367362"}"></div></p>
<h2>Putting net zero in peril</h2>
<p>These projects do serious damage to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts. They enable Safeguard Mechanism facilities to increase their emissions – and governments to approve new fossil fuel projects – on the grounds that carbon credits will provide offsetting reductions elsewhere. But credits with no integrity produce no offsetting reductions. </p>
<p>The flood of low-integrity credits in the ACCU market also artificially lowers the carbon price faced by the Safeguard Mechanism facilities. The lower price causes the facility operators to rely more heavily on offsets and delay onsite emission reduction efforts. It also warps the offset market by making high-integrity offset projects unviable – a form of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law">Gresham’s Law</a>, where bad projects drive out the good.</p>
<p>The situation with Australia’s offset scheme is not unique. Research on <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade3535">other offset schemes</a> has found <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316216473_How_additional_is_the_Clean_Development_Mechanism_Analysis_of_the_application_of_current_tools_and_proposed_alternatives_Study_prepared_for_DG_CLIMA">similar</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15943">integrity problems</a>. That’s because generating high-integrity credits is difficult.</p>
<p>Scheme regulators have a challenging job. Along with having to measure emissions and removals from dispersed and often naturally variable sources and carbon sinks, they must try to screen out phoney emissions reductions offered by project proponents. </p>
<p>The latter have both a huge information advantage over regulators and strong incentives to claim credits for doing what they were already doing or planning to do anyway – such as retaining forests they never intended to clear. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-original-and-still-the-best-why-its-time-to-renew-australias-renewable-energy-policy-213879">The original and still the best: why it's time to renew Australia's renewable energy policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But regulators also have an incentive to increase the supply of credits, even if it risks reducing integrity. This is because low credit supply is taken as a sign of scheme failure. </p>
<p>Tight integrity standards reduce credit supply and push up credit prices, which in turn increases compliance costs for polluters and destabilises political support for carbon pricing schemes. Liquid markets built on a healthy supply of credits (regardless of quality) make regulators look good and keep emitters and politicians happy.</p>
<h2>The failings of the Chubb Review</h2>
<p>In 2022, the Albanese government commissioned former chief scientist <a href="https://www.science.org.au/profile/ian-chubb">Ian Chubb</a> to lead a <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/independent-review-accus">review of the ACCU scheme</a>. The review’s report was <a href="https://theconversation.com/chubb-review-of-australias-carbon-credit-scheme-falls-short-and-problems-will-continue-to-fester-197401">confused and contradictory</a>. It dismissed concerns about the scheme’s integrity, even those <a href="https://theconversation.com/untenable-even-companies-profiting-from-australias-carbon-market-say-the-system-must-change-190232">expressed by developers</a> of offset projects. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-urgently-needs-a-climate-plan-and-a-net-zero-national-cabinet-committee-to-implement-it-213866">Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Despite not analysing the performance of a single project, the review confidently concluded that the level of abatement credited under the scheme had not been overstated. Its evidence for this was limited to one sentence: “While the Panel was provided with some evidence supporting that position (that integrity problems existed), it was also provided with evidence to the contrary.” It gave no details of what that contrary evidence was.</p>
<p>The panel then recommended substantial changes, including an end to the untenable situation in which the Clean Energy Regulator, the statutory authority charged with implementing legislation to reduce emissions, was responsible for making and administering the scheme rules and then buying most of the credits. The panel also proposed repeal of the avoided deforestation offset.</p>
<p>These changes, while welcome, were carefully designed to leave existing projects untouched. For example, repeal of the avoided deforestation method will not affect 63 existing projects, which will generate credits for years to come. </p>
<p>Conveniently, this will ensure that the supply of ACCUs and their price remain in a politically acceptable range until at least 2030.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/made-in-america-how-bidens-climate-package-is-fuelling-the-global-drive-to-net-zero-214709">Made in America: how Biden's climate package is fuelling the global drive to net zero</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What the government must do</h2>
<p>Truly fixing the scheme requires the government to stop crediting low-integrity projects and methods. The credit tap must be turned off for all avoided deforestation projects and most human-induced regeneration projects, and crediting arrangements for landfill projects must be radically improved. </p>
<p>The government’s political problem is that it needs to keep the carbon price within a palatable range for Safeguard Mechanism facilities. If it stopped crediting low-integrity projects, prices would skyrocket and not enough high-integrity credits exist to meet demand. </p>
<p>The government could solve the problem by introducing a standard cap price into the Safeguard Mechanism. Instead of surrendering credits, facilities could pay, for instance, A$50 per tonne on excess emissions. But that would open the government to claims that the scheme is just another carbon tax.</p>
<p>Fixing these flaws is challenging. But by refusing to face the problems head-on, the government has sabotaged its own climate policy. Its failure could also permanently stain the reputation of offsets. </p>
<p>Like Robodebt, the scheme is badly designed, unethical, and destined to fail, albeit for different reasons. We can only hope that when it unravels, it doesn’t do Australia’s decarbonisation efforts permanent harm.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213874/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh is a director of the Paraway Pastoral Company, which has offset projects registered under the ACCU scheme. He has also received funding for research projects involving analysis of the operation of the ACCU scheme. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Butler receives funding from the Australian Government. </span></em></p>For Australia to shift to a net zero economy, its big polluters need to cut emissions. A get-out clause buried in the policy makes it unlikely that they will, and the result will be devastating.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityDon Butler, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1974012023-01-09T05:34:07Z2023-01-09T05:34:07ZChubb review of Australia’s carbon credit scheme falls short – and problems will continue to fester<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503573/original/file-20230109-23-q8dj3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C30%2C5074%2C3362&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeremy Ng/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>An independent <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/independent-review-accus">review</a> of Australia’s controversial carbon credit system released today concluded the scheme is essentially sound. But key questions remain unaddressed – a fact that will continue to undermine confidence in Australia’s central climate policy. </p>
<p>The review, led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, followed <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-market-fraud-environment">concerns</a> raised by our research team that the scheme lacked integrity and was not delivering genuine reductions in greenhouses gas emissions. The review panel, however, says it does “not share this view”.</p>
<p>Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen on Monday said the government accepted all 16 of the review panel’s recommendations.</p>
<p>But more must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="smoke stack in front of setting sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/503574/original/file-20230109-11-n3uuxj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The federal government has accepted the review’s recommendations – but more must be done to ensure genuine carbon abatement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charlie Riedel/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carbon credits underpin our climate policy</h2>
<p>Australia’s carbon credit system is central to reaching the federal government goal of 43% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.</p>
<p>The scheme provides carbon credits to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions using a number of approved methods, such as avoiding deforestation. These credits can be sold on the carbon market to entities that want to offset their emissions. </p>
<p>In March last year, our research team raised <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/news-and-events/news/australia%E2%80%99s-carbon-market-fraud-environment">serious concerns</a> about the scheme. In a <a href="https://law.anu.edu.au/research/publications">series of papers</a>, we outlined systemic flaws in the way carbon credits were issued. </p>
<p>We concluded Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund – under which the scheme operates – has serious governance flaws, has issued a large number of low integrity credits and is wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p>Our analysis focused on three of the fund’s most popular methods – avoiding deforestation, human-induced regeneration of native forests and combusting methane from landfills. These account for 75% of the credits issued under the scheme.</p>
<p>We found that more than 70% of the credits issued under these methods do not represent genuine emissions abatement.</p>
<p>Following that criticism, in July last year, the Albanese government commissioned an independent review of the scheme. Those findings were released today.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="farm scene with trees and crops" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=279&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471787/original/file-20220630-11-d3b9m7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The author’s research found more than 70% of the credits issued under a number of carbon farming methods do not represent genuine emissions abatement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-blew-the-whistle-on-australias-central-climate-policy-heres-what-a-new-federal-government-probe-must-fix-185894">We blew the whistle on Australia's central climate policy. Here's what a new federal government probe must fix</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A ‘bewildering’ assessment</h2>
<p>The panel <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/independent-review-accu-final-report.pdf">concluded</a> the carbon credit arrangements are largely sound. How the panel reached this conclusion is hard to fathom.</p>
<p>Discussion of the rules governing human-induced regeneration, landfill gas and avoided deforestation projects spans less than six pages. </p>
<p>The report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules.</p>
<p>Bewilderingly, in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/review-four-methods-generating-australian-carbon-credit-units.pdf">review</a> it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science to inform its considerations.</p>
<p>The academy reviewed the three main methods my research team analysed and a fourth, concerning carbon capture and storage.</p>
<p>It found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. For example, consistent with our analysis, it found a risk the human-induced regeneration method is crediting vegetation change brought on by rainfall, rather than project activities.</p>
<p>The academy also found problems with the landfill gas method – namely, that so-called “baselines” used to calculate carbon abatement don’t adequately account for other financial and regulatory incentives offered to operators for capturing and combusting methane. </p>
<p>This means credits are sometimes issued for actions the industry would take anyway. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/untenable-even-companies-profiting-from-australias-carbon-market-say-the-system-must-change-190232">I wrote</a> in The Conversation in September last year, so great are the problems with the landfill gas method that several large companies profiting from it have <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-06/companies-making-money-from-carbon-credits-speak-out/101400566">called for</a> changes to the system. </p>
<p>The academy is not alone in recognising these problems. The <a href="https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/independent-review-of-accu/submission/view/150">CSIRO</a> and <a href="https://wentworthgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Final-Chubb-Submission_Wentworth-Group.pdf">Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists</a> also found problems with the rules governing the issuance of credits.</p>
<p>The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="pipes collecting methane from site" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483646/original/file-20220909-20-6tx20f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The landfill gas industry says credits are sometimes issued for actions the industry would take anyway.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/untenable-even-companies-profiting-from-australias-carbon-market-say-the-system-must-change-190232">'Untenable': even companies profiting from Australia's carbon market say the system must change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Integrity is essential</h2>
<p>The panel recommended significant changes to governance arrangements under the carbon credits scheme. It’s hard to understand the need for such changes if there are no material problems with the credits.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, most recommended governance changes are welcome, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>reducing the roles performed by the Clean Energy Regulator, to “enhance confidence and transparency” and reduce potential conflicts of interest</p></li>
<li><p>amend the scheme’s legislation to improve transparency to support greater public trust and confidence in the scheme.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>But these governance changes are not enough. Measures should be taken to prevent low-integrity credits being issued to existing projects. And polluting facilities should not be allowed to use low-integrity credits to meet their emission reduction obligations.</p>
<p>Without these changes, problems with the scheme will continue to fester, jeopardising the operation of the government’s climate policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-relies-on-controversial-offsets-to-meet-climate-change-targets-we-might-not-get-away-with-it-in-egypt-193460">Australia relies on controversial offsets to meet climate change targets. We might not get away with it in Egypt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197401/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Macintosh consults to various organisations about the carbon market and other environmental markets. He is also a Director of Paraway Pastoral Co., which has ERF projects. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Butler receives funding from the Australian Government and also consults to various organisations about the carbon market and other environmental markets. </span></em></p>More must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.Andrew Macintosh, Professor and Director of Research, ANU Law School, Australian National UniversityDon Butler, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1354402020-04-02T07:34:28Z2020-04-02T07:34:28ZDemocracy 2025 - How does Australia compare: what makes a leading democracy? With Michelle Grattan, Mark Evans and Ian Chubb<p>In this special hour long podcast presented by Mark Evans, professor of governance and director of Democracy 2025, the panel discusses Australian democracy with Emeritus Professor Ian Chubb and Michelle Grattan.</p>
<p>The panel dissects the Australian trust in government, compared with other modern democracies around the world. Drawing on the world values survey,<a href="https://www.democracy2025.gov.au/documents/Democracy2025-report6.pdf"> the report </a>notes the sharp focus on the quality of democratic governance, especially in the time of global crisis caused by coronavirus.</p>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="http://pca.st/BVa3#t=3m34s">here</a> to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135440/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this special hour long podcast presented by Mark Evans, professor of governance and director of Democracy 2025, the panel discusses Australian democracy with Emeritus Professor Ian Chubb and Michelle Grattan.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/424132015-06-03T20:15:14Z2015-06-03T20:15:14ZFive challenges for science in Australian primary schools<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83053/original/image-20150527-25098-1qi3bkn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kids need to love science to thrive</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com.au</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science education has been in the spotlight after federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne recently <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/policy/education/labor-states-reject-christopher-pyne-plan-for-compulsory-maths-or-science-to-year-12-20150531-ghdi0l">proposed</a> to make science and maths education compulsory through to year 12. </p>
<p>While this is welcome news, such a proposal needs to include long-term plans for improving the status of science in primary schools and ensuring teachers have the requisite support. Here we outline some of the challenges faced as the new science curriculum is implemented across the country.</p>
<h2>The Australian curriculum is not a ‘national curriculum’</h2>
<p>Many people in education are somewhat bemused that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s Australian Curriculum is not national. </p>
<p>Every state and territory is <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/foundation_-_year_10.html">implementing the curriculum in their own way</a>. This is most noticeable in NSW. Primary school teachers have to follow the <a href="http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/">NSW syllabus</a>, which combines an additional “technology” component along with science. </p>
<h2>Primary Connections – one size does not fit all</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.primaryconnections.org.au/about">Primary Connections</a> is a program developed to support the teaching of the Australian science curriculum. It has been overtly promoted and endorsed by the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/primary-connections-0">Australian Academy of Science</a> plus <a href="https://youtu.be/7ODMAyx4y7U?t=55m">the science panel on Q&A in 2014</a>, which included Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, Professor Suzanne Cory and Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Schmidt. Schmidt even used some of his Nobel Prize money to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/nobel-winners-prize-for-school-science-program/story-e6frgcjx-1226215574165">support it</a>.</p>
<p>Primary Connections does provide a wealth of ideas, activities, background knowledge and safety considerations. However, it also has several issues.</p>
<p>While Primary Connections is free to all schools via the online platform <a href="https://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/p/home">Scootle</a>, many schools are still spending money to get it via the <a href="https://www.primaryconnections.org.au/products/how-to-order">Primary Connections website</a>, to which the Australian Academy of Science website <a href="https://www.science.org.au/news/primary-connections-releasing-new-units-and-teaching-resources">points</a> all those interested.</p>
<p>Primary Connections is essentially just a bunch of PDFs, which is a long way from an inspiring instructive for teachers to get kids interested in science.</p>
<p>Many schools are also implementing Primary Connections in its entirety, which might not be consistent with their state or territory requirements. This will not allow for a personalised journey into scientific inquiry. </p>
<p>In some states, relying solely on Primary Connections would make a school non-compliant with the requirements of the state syllabus. For example, Primary Connections does not cater for the <a href="http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/objectives/">technology knowledge and skills</a> in the NSW syllabus.</p>
<h2>Science is a high-anxiety, low-confidence subject for many primary teachers</h2>
<p>As a primary school teacher once told us, “primary teachers are expert generalists”. Most lack the training and experience to teach science, and a deep understanding of the subject and experimentation. Many feel <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/1761/">under-confident in science</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83056/original/image-20150527-25072-12r8exy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Teachers spend less time on subjects they’re less confident in, like science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdecom/5461590715/">USArmyRDEcom/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/73153/1/Continuing_decline_of_science_proof.pdf">declines in science participation</a> are longstanding and will have fed into the teaching profession. So, increasingly, teachers will not have studied science at upper secondary school or university. Only <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf">around 50% of teachers teaching science in 2013</a> had received training in teaching methods for science. </p>
<p>There are also issues in secondary schools. One in five teachers in science classes <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf">teaches out of their area of specialisation</a>.</p>
<p>The introduction of the new curriculum adds to the challenges teachers face. It may lead some to cling onto any resource they find – even if it does not cover all of the curriculum needs.</p>
<h2>Time demands on primary schools</h2>
<p>When primary teachers face disruptions due to impromptu assemblies, excursions (<a href="https://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PISA-2012-Report.pdf">reported as causing serious disruption in Australian schools</a> in particular) and extra-curricular activities, they have to choose what to chop from their teaching. This has been demonstrated to impact most on subjects that the teachers themselves are least comfortable with. This is traditionally mathematics, where teachers are <a href="http://simerr.une.edu.au/pages/projects/129mathsbackground.php">under-confident</a> and often have <a href="http://www.merga.net.au/documents/MERGA33_Meaney&Lange.pdf">limited content knowledge</a>.</p>
<p>While mathematics is assessed in NAPLAN, there is currently no comprehensive national assessment of science. Thus, despite (or perhaps because of) the new emphasis on science, <a href="http://asta.edu.au/generic/file-widget/download/id/693">science is at risk</a> of being the new sacrificial lamb of choice. </p>
<p><a href="http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/go/parents/parents-guide-to-the-nsw-primary-syllabuses/!ut/p/a1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOLNHB3NPIz8DbwsAsPcDDzDQl0t3L1cjLz9zIAKIoEK_A09XD38gw083f2cXIAKzExDg1zNDQ0MTInTb4ADOBoQ0h-uHwVWAneBRYAFSImZn4Gvu7-hv6k5ugIsTgQrwOOGgtzQCINMT0UABan91g!!/#time">NSW mandates that 6-10% of curriculum time is spent on science</a> in primary schools – that’s 1.5 to 2.5 hours a week. There is substantial variation in the time devoted to science across states and schools. Many schools are operating on only one hour a week, which could easily become 45 minutes when you factor in “pack-up time” at the end of the day and other interruptions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=232&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83458/original/image-20150601-15247-zu9z2e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=292&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Primary school science teaching survey, 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Specialist teachers an unlikely dream</h2>
<p>Ian Chubb recently wrote about <a href="https://theconversation.com/aspiring-to-something-magnificent-with-science-in-australia-39248">aspiring to something magnificent with science in Australia</a>. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every primary school ought to have a science teacher with continually updated knowledge. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a noble dream. However, it also raises several issues.</p>
<p>First, there are enough <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-many-teachers-teaching-outside-their-area-of-expertise-39688">problems recruiting specialist science teachers into secondary</a>, let alone primary schools. And what happens to those students already in school during the hiatus to train up specialist primary science teachers?</p>
<p>Second, in a large primary school, only one science specialist would not be enough. They would not be able to get to every class for the recommended curriculum time. Teaching science, as with any subject, is the responsibility of all primary teachers. With science being somewhat neglected historically in pre-service training, how are we going to train up all of the incumbents?</p>
<p>There are some wonderful primary teachers out there who openly admit they need help with teaching science. However, national, state and school structures currently conspire to make this more difficult and less enjoyable than it should be. </p>
<p>To <a href="https://13-science.cdn.aspedia.net/sites/default/files/user-content/resources/file/report_0.pdf">benefit the national economy</a>, we need to raise the profile of science and develop a long-term plan to nurture it in schools and industry. Educational attainment in science is linked to <a href="http://www.oecdbookshop.org/browse.asp?pid=title-detail&lang=en&ds=&ISB=9789264234833">national economic growth</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02188791.2014.924387">competitiveness</a>. These high stakes prompted the UK Royal Society to develop <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/education/policy/vision/reports/vision-full-report-20140625.pdf">a 20-year plan</a> and a follow-up <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387780/PU1719_HMT_Science_.pdf?utm_source=Home_Page&utm_medium=FlexSlider&utm_campaign=UK_Governments_plan_for_growth">UK government strategy</a>. </p>
<p>Here, Australia’s Chief Scientist has <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">outlined the need for such planning</a>. Central to this is the need to support teachers in schools, because, in the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/every-child-needs-to-love-science-to-thrive-20150519-gh4ve4.html">words of Ian Chubb</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… every child needs to love science to thrive.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Crook is the Founder of CrookED Science, a science education consultancy.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Wilson works for the University of Sydney and does not have any interests that would benefit from this article.</span></em></p>Just having a national curriculum for science doesn’t solve all of our problems.Simon Crook, PhD Candidate - Physics Education Research, University of SydneyRachel Wilson, Senior Lecturer - Research Methodology / Educational Assessment & Evaluation, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317332014-09-16T07:05:34Z2014-09-16T07:05:34ZPassion, patience and persistence are needed by today’s scientists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59128/original/s6dswrnv-1410850201.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'The way in which we express the awesomeness of science is far too muted.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Screenshot/ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Australia’s chief scientist Ian Chubb appeared on the first <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/">all-science Q&A panel</a> on the ABC last night with Suzanne Cory, Peter Doherty, Brian Schmidt and Marita Cheng. Here he outlines a disconnect between Australian research and public perceptions of science – but scientists can help bridge that gap.</em></p>
<p>Each year, I travel to many parts of Australia, making speeches, attending workshops, symposia, conferences and roundtables. It is an opportunity for me to hear first-hand what people think; scientists as well as interested members of the public.</p>
<p>I am also interviewed often by any number of journalists on any number of topics, and meet many people from the business community: all conversations that give me a sense of how science is viewed by those outside it.</p>
<p>It is pretty obvious that there is a gap between the perceptions.</p>
<p>I do think scientists could work harder to engage the broader community and business.</p>
<p>I also think work is required by others to learn and appreciate what scientists actually do.</p>
<p>I do not pretend it is easy. If it were, we would already have managed to change the culture and have reached a better understanding.</p>
<p>Researchers represent the engine room of Australian science, a constant source of new ideas, different ways of thinking and better ways of doing.</p>
<p>Only those closest to them will know the long hours they spend in the laboratory, in the field, in the office and at home, in pursuit of answers.</p>
<p>Researchers work not knowing when or where the big breakthroughs will come, or if they will ever come. That does not diminish their persistence and rarely affects their passion in the long term, although it may test their patience from time to time.</p>
<p>The only certainty researchers know is financial uncertainty. This makes personal choices and long-term planning difficult, in some cases impossible.</p>
<p>Yet they do it. They do it, but often struggle to communicate and engage with those who stand to benefit.</p>
<p>And those who do stand to benefit often labour under incorrect assumptions about science; which makes it difficult to separate reality from fiction, especially when those with the loudest megaphones choose to play on that ignorance in the pursuit of their own agenda.</p>
<p>The community might not necessarily see how science impacts their food, their health, their security, their environment and the economy. They might take it for granted and not think about it at all. If they don’t see the science, why would they be expected to care about it? But there is an impact: on all of us, each and every day. </p>
<p>The truth is that both sides need encouragement and support, to talk, to listen and to understand each other.</p>
<p>When he was UK prime minister, Tony Blair <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1080/15216540214927/asset/713804011_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=i04viwh8&s=5091e76ba197ee677f7040ab4bcf98706b36406c">told</a> the Royal Society: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the benefits of science will only be exploited through a renewed compact between science and society, based on a proper understanding of what science is trying to achieve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At a time of year when some scientists are being singled out for <a href="https://theconversation.com/plain-talker-on-climate-change-among-eureka-prize-winners-31461">prizes</a>, I wonder if it is possible for Australians to develop a more lasting appreciation of the many curious, dedicated and driven scientists they have in this country. Scientists working in their interests.</p>
<p>In return, I wonder if it is possible for those scientists to always remember why they do what they do. And to feel more comfortable about explaining that in forums outside their own comfort zone. </p>
<p>As I said on the ABC’s Q&A program last night, the way in which we express the awesomeness of science is far too muted. Scientists need to add patience and persistence to their passion to bring the community along with them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb is Australia's chief scientist.</span></em></p>Australia’s chief scientist Ian Chubb appeared on the first all-science Q&A panel on the ABC last night with Suzanne Cory, Peter Doherty, Brian Schmidt and Marita Cheng. Here he outlines a disconnect…Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/310582014-09-01T20:40:19Z2014-09-01T20:40:19ZLIVE STREAM: Smart Science symposium with Chief Scientist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57851/original/8c4qwpvh-1409558020.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You can join in the discussion from 11.30am AEST.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/liquene/3900145161">Alessandro Valli/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Please note: the live stream has now finished. A video of the the live stream is below.</em></p>
<p>Australia in 2025 will be strong, prosperous, healthy and secure and positioned to benefit all Australians in a rapidly changing world.</p>
<p>We are told that Australia will need a diverse economy built on sustainable productivity growth, knowledge-based industries and high value goods and services.</p>
<p>How will science address the challenges of the future? </p>
<p>You’re invited to take part in the discussion. This symposium held at Parliament House is the culmination of a 12-part series co-commissioned with the Office of the Chief Scientist, examining the contribution of each of the major disciplines to address the challenges of Australia in 2025. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hlQY0VJ7JQ4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><br>
The live stream will begin at 11.30am AEST – please refresh your browsers or press “play”.</p>
<p>Submit your questions in the comments stream below, on Twitter using <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23smartscience&src=typd">#SmartScience</a> or via our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ConversationEDU">Facebook page</a>.</p>
<p>The series – authored by recognised experts in their field – can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australia-2025-series">read here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Please note: the live stream has now finished. A video of the the live stream is below. Australia in 2025 will be strong, prosperous, healthy and secure and positioned to benefit all Australians in a rapidly…Belinda Smith, EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/304612014-08-13T08:30:49Z2014-08-13T08:30:49ZThere are no free rides to the future: Australia’s Chief Scientist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56362/original/55z7c8t3-1407905561.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Professor Ian Chubb: 'We are a nation in 'transition', we hear. But to what; and how?'</span> </figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>This is a transcript of the 2014 <a href="https://www.unsw.edu.au/events/2014-jack-beale-lecture-global-environment">Jack Beale Lecture on the Global Environment</a>, hosted at the University of New South Wales.</strong></em></p>
<p>Tonight I want to talk about the future.</p>
<p>I know that it’s not a novel thing to do; not even a new thing to do. Indeed, Hansard records that the word “future” was used <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/">848 times</a> in the Australian Parliament just last June; a number that appears to be the highest monthly count on record.</p>
<p>I will use the word “future” a lot, too, tonight. Not 848 times – but often enough to emphasise the point that we can choose the sort of future we get: we can take what comes and muddle along; or we can work out what we want and earn it by planning, prioritising and persistence.</p>
<p>I am not one of those who thinks that good things will just happen because we expect them to.</p>
<p>I think we need to organise, evaluate and cohere – to make sure that we align our efforts and our investment with our national interests; that we focus on areas that are of particular importance or where there is a particular need; and that we build to a scale that will make a difference both to ourselves and to a changing world.</p>
<p>I am comfortable saying that here because I think Jack Beale would say the same.
He was a scientist and a statesman, an innovator and a man of business. He was a politician who thought about the future.</p>
<p>In many ways, he put the future of our planet – particularly its water resources – on the map. He was ahead of his time.</p>
<p>He was Australia’s first environment minister – and among the first to think that such a role might have a place in our politics.</p>
<p>He made his motivation very clear when <a href="http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/d891a0806177d17eca256d100026e9aa/36f4c%203b525f62a8eca25720a0021a398">he said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is the lowest, flattest, hottest and driest continent on the earth and we have to manage it accordingly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, in Jack Beale’s day, in his political life, some things were probably a little less complicated (even less complex) than they appear to be now.</p>
<p>Certainly there was no Facebook, or Twitter or selfies when he entered politics in NSW in 1942 – some six years before Australia produced its very first home-trained PhD graduate. Thinking aloud and floating ideas might have been more attractive at a time when your critics faced you and the discussion was more civil.</p>
<p>Jack Beale was also in politics at a time of reconstruction after World War II. It was a period when people of vision saw a need to build a different Australia – a better Australia.</p>
<p>And it was one where research and education were seen as vital to the building of that better Australia – a stronger Australia that earned its place in the world because of the contribution it was willing and increasingly able to make.
They thought a lot about the future in those days – and it was clear that they had learnt from history and didn’t want to repeat it.</p>
<p>I wonder if we can say the same of our thinking about the future today.</p>
<p>Is the word “future” just a convenient handle we grasp to hint at our wisdom, or our vision, but is really a handle without substance? Is it easier to dream about the future than it is to act in the present?</p>
<p>Or are we seeing a real intention to develop a meaningful and comprehensive approach to secure a future we want?</p>
<p>The sort of future we would want to hand on to our children and grandchildren and our great grandchildren; a future for them that we would be pleased to have for ourselves?</p>
<p>The sort of future that Jack Beale’s generation aspired to leave for us?</p>
<p>I’m not sure that it is clear. We have certainly heard the word tied to the recent budget – so we know that a future without debt is a good thing. I can accept that.</p>
<p>But I also know that I want more.</p>
<p>I want an Australia that is more than just what is left after the economic trimmings work their way through the community’s digestive system. I want an Australia in which our economy is organised to support our aspiration and not to limit it.</p>
<p>As I’ve said elsewhere, we wouldn’t order a truck load of bricks without knowing the type of house we wanted to build. Yet we fiddle with individual bits of the economy and wait to see what it all adds up to.</p>
<p>Of course we have to change. Presuming that she’ll be right because it most often has been is no longer an option – surely.</p>
<p>And what has been described as the national motto, that is “no worries”, doesn’t serve us well either.</p>
<p>The world was a very different place when somebody decades ago made those colloquialisms the quintessential Australian response to almost any circumstance.</p>
<p>But there was always an ambiguity at their core.</p>
<p>At their best, they stand for optimism – a willingness to shoulder a challenge with courage and ambition.</p>
<p>But they can just as easily stand for a collective shrug – a willingness to accept whatever comes to hand; an apathy or even complacency.</p>
<p>Too much of the latter and the world will leave us behind.</p>
<p>The managing director of Google in Australia Maile Carnegie reminded us of that recently when <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/google-chief-warns-of-skills-shortages/story-e6frg8zx-1226972901808">she said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] the long-term challenge for Australia is how do we, as a minimum, keep pace with the global revolution that is happening? But the more immediate challenge is to make sure that we don’t slip further behind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And why would the world care if we appear not to care: no worries; she’ll be right?</p>
<p>Of course, we are frequently told that our future competitiveness cannot be underpinned by our natural resources alone.</p>
<p>We are a nation in “transition”, we hear.</p>
<p>But to what; and how?</p>
<p>There is not likely to be any country in the world with all the answers. But as we decide the what and the how, if we decide we want to act, we can observe and we can learn. Because we do know that nations all around the world are resetting their economies.</p>
<p>We know that new technologies are pushing smart companies to the lead.</p>
<p>New industries and new sources of wealth are emerging. New skills are required for workers at all levels as economies change. A new culture of risk and reward is spreading.</p>
<p>Countries at all levels of development are now focusing on the capabilities required for building new jobs and creating wealth.</p>
<p>And they are acting now to secure the skills, investment and international alliances for their future.</p>
<p>At the core of almost every agenda is science, technology, engineering and mathematics (which I will refer to from here as science). It is the <a href="http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30059041/tytler-stemcountry-2013.pdf">almost universal preoccupation</a> now shaping the world’s plans.</p>
<p>It is a preoccupation that crosses all boundaries of language, culture and geography.</p>
<p>We too need to recognise that it is the knowledge that science will offer, and the sensible application of that knowledge to agreed goals, that will build a stronger Australia.</p>
<p>Australia must forge its path in step with the rest of the world. We must remain in the game with a differentiated and readily adaptable economy that supports the aspirations we have for the country. And we must ensure that we bequeath a planet that can sustain the coming generations.</p>
<p>I put to you that these aspirations are not exclusive and that science is at their core.</p>
<p>Whether it is our climate, our health, our ageing population, our food supply, our economy or our security, it will be scientific discovery and the use of scientific knowledge that will give us the capacity to respond.</p>
<p>None of this is new – indeed, it is widely accepted.</p>
<p>Wherever I go, I hear that science is important and Australia should be good at it, something the Commonwealth’s Commission of Audit also identified. I even hear it confidently asserted that the outlook must be rosy: after all, we are often told that in science we’re clearly punching above our weight.</p>
<p>So – she’ll be right. No worries.</p>
<p>But is that true? Not really. Some recent and comprehensive forthcoming work done by my office provides some interesting indications.</p>
<p>We compared our performance with that of 11 western European countries, the United States and Canada. It is clear that our best are very good.</p>
<p>We do well amongst the group in terms of our share of the world’s top 1% of cited research papers; but our average (field weighted) citation rates are below all of them.</p>
<p>Our patenting rates are poor, and the linkages between our researchers and business are <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/science/policy/AustralianInnovationSystemReport/AISR2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AIS-Innovation-%20Systems-Report-2013-v3.pdf">among</a> the <a href="http://www.acola.org.au/index.php/projects/securing-australia-s-future/project-4">worst</a> in the OECD.</p>
<p>Less than one in three Australian researchers work in industry; half the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sti/rds.">OECD average of 60%</a> and substantially less than the US, where some <a href="http://www.uis.unesco.org/Pages/default.aspx">two in three researchers</a> are in the business sector.</p>
<p>Just <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/science/policy/AustralianInnovationSystemReport/AISR2011/index.html.">1.5% of Australian companies</a> developed new to the world innovations in the latest year for which statistics are available, compared to between 10 to 40% in other OECD countries.</p>
<p>That, as I say, is our current performance.</p>
<p>Looking to the future – by which I mean looking into schools – we sit in the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-%20results-snapshot-Volume-I-ENG.pdf.">middle of the pack</a> for primary and secondary students’ performance in science and mathematics literacy.</p>
<p>While I accept that indicators such as these are not all perfect, they do offer an insight into where Australia sits overall.</p>
<p>Bluntly, we are middle-of-the-road. Not better – not punching above our weight as we so often declare in a fit of misguided and unhelpful enthusiasm.
I think it is no coincidence that we sit where we do.</p>
<p>Australia is now the only OECD country that does not have a contemporary national science and technology, or innovation strategy.</p>
<p>Our science investment and policies are too heavily dependent on so-called “terminating program” grants, funding offsets and sporadic commitments to infrastructure. And worse, they have suffered from a lack of coordination. As each agency, department or university independently makes its necessary budget adjustments, our national science profile is what’s left over. And it is compounded by the study choices of undergraduate students, given the numerical dominance of university researchers in our profile. What is important may not be popular.</p>
<p>As I said before, we have long presumed that good things will just happen. That in amongst the churn we will still have what we need when the time comes. She’ll be right, we might say. No worries.</p>
<p>But science is a long haul. It is not something that can be turned on or off when we feel like it.</p>
<p>And it isn’t like a tooth brush: something you can buy when you get there because you forgot to pack one.</p>
<p>If we are to build both capacity and capability we need strategic investment supported by good planning and long-term commitment.</p>
<p>We need to build the capability to take up whatever legacy of progress we leave behind – so that the next generations know more about the world than we do today; and learn to shape it in ways that we cannot.</p>
<p>There is actually <em>a</em> science <em>to</em> science.</p>
<p>To give one example: ensuring we develop enough scientists and science-trained workers, in a competitive world where talent is increasingly mobile. A sort of talent security along with all the other securities we talk about: like food, water, cyber and so on.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-06-11/doorstop-interview-p-tech-brooklyn">summed it up</a> in New York recently: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Science is at the heart of a country’s competitiveness and it is important that we do not neglect science as we look at the general educational and training schemes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We need to be mindful of the fact that decisions made today in schools will start to have their impact on the workforce profile in five, six, seven or more years from now. That is where we should be thinking. The “market” there and beyond.</p>
<p>It is not easy – but it is possible.</p>
<p>The Royal Society of London, for one, has recently released a <a href="https://royalsociety.org/%7E/media/education/policy/vision/reports/vision-full-report-20140625.pdf">report</a> laying down the imperative for science education.</p>
<p>As the Chair of the Committee said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Science and mathematics are at the absolute heart of modern life. They are essential to our understanding of the world […] [and] provide the foundations for the UK’s future economic prosperity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Vice-Chair of the Committee commented:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our Vision takes the long view but recognises that there is both urgency and great opportunity for Government to act now. Estimates suggest that one million new science, technology and engineering professionals will be required in the UK by 2020 and yet there is a persistent dearth of young people taking these qualifications after the age of 16. If the UK is to remain globally competitive and if we are to develop a more equitable and informed society, Government and the wider education community must take the Royal Society’s recommendations seriously.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When we try to begin a conversation here about Australia’s future needs, we get told that starting salaries for science graduates are (apparently) low, therefore there is no market pull, so pull your head in.</p>
<p>The implication is that we shouldn’t be like nearly every other developed economy on the planet and think ahead. Too hard for us. Keep it short-term – focus on what happened last year. She’ll be right.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that attitude is a bit like saying that we can get rid of all Australia’s cows because we’ve got milk in the ‘fridge.</p>
<p>Whatever the logic behind it, we will see the consequences in lost opportunities for our people and our economy.</p>
<p>As the Managing Director of BASF Australia <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/decline_in_science_students_danger_r199DKic8tkMKE1bf2K0MP">Ross Pilling wrote</a> in the Financial Review: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia’s business community is looking on with concern at the sharply declining participation rates in the so-called STEM disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics […] Fewer year 12 students, especially girls, have any interest in studying maths and science. For business, this is a source of profound frustration.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We need a conversation now in which we talk about how we support science to do all the things we need it to do. And how we make sure that we have the right science – and that we ask the right questions.</p>
<p>We need science that:</p>
<ul>
<li>gives us the knowledge to understand the challenges we face</li>
<li>expands the toolkit we can bring to confront those challenges</li>
<li>connects Australia to global science – to give and receive</li>
<li>gives us a shared vocabulary, in which hard things can be talked about and tackled.</li>
</ul>
<p>As the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/23/speeches.tonyblair">Tony Blair said</a> to the Royal Society in 2002 when talking about moral judgment: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Science […] allows us to do more, but it doesn’t tell us whether doing more is right or wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We need the science to inform the judgement and we need the conversation to get the action.</p>
<p>More than a year has now passed since I released a position paper outlining the case for a national strategy for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.</p>
<p>I’ve spent that year doing dozens of media interviews and delivering speeches right across the country advocating a strategy. Not one individual or organisation has said it is a bad idea. Not one has said it is not needed.</p>
<p>The Business Council of Australia on July 31 last year endorsed such an approach and listed a science strategy as critical to Australia’s economic growth.</p>
<p>Their current president, Catherine Livingstone, was more recently <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/business-council-calls-for-urgent-education-overhaul-20140725-%20zvnqh.html">quoted</a> as saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have been bemoaning the poor state of STEM skills […] in schools and universities for over 15 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So I can only echo her question:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If we are all agreed that this is an issue why isn’t enough happening?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Other countries are doing it – and they’re investing strategically in science – for the long haul.</p>
<p>These other countries have found the right way to get leadership from government – learnt how to get government in the way – in the right way, in the right place for the right period of time.</p>
<p>We can, too.</p>
<p>I note in passing that our “competitors” have also moved past using the expression “picking winners” as the standard pejorative to stop any thinking about needs and advantages and focus and scale.</p>
<p>Instead of being stuck in the old ways, our competitors have moved on.</p>
<p>They have identified national priorities and set out to fund them appropriately – areas where they have advantage, or need, or capacity to grow to scale, or to take new products to market.</p>
<p>The United Kingdom, the EU, Canada, the United States, China, South Korea, and many, many other countries around the globe, have prioritised science funding as an important foundation for future sustained growth.</p>
<p>Amongst others, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-of-the-exchequers-speech-on-science-in-cambridge">said in April</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’ve had to make difficult choices to cut public spending. The easy route would have been to cut science spending. But it would have been painful for the economy and the wrong answer for Britain. It would have completely undermined our long term economic prospects.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The key players understand that to have the scientific capacity to meet the greatest challenges, they need to be strategic about the entire pipeline, from education, to research to industry. And they act now.</p>
<p>Surely we in Australia can, too.</p>
<p>And I do sense that the calls for action are increasing. I sense that she’ll be right might be challenged – and importantly, from those directly impacted by inaction.</p>
<p>It is also my view that we can’t just continue to tinker at the margins. That’s what we have done and it is clear that it isn’t good enough.</p>
<p>I do believe that we need to be bold – with well thought through but bold initiatives that position us for the future.</p>
<p>So let me put my version of a strategy to you tonight. It would be underpinned by four main objectives:</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>Competitiveness: science must underpin a differentiated and readily adaptable economy, one that is globally competitive and one that will enable all Australians to benefit from the opportunities that will follow.</strong> We can learn from what has been done in the UK and the US, in particular. There they have introduced structural arrangements that support innovation and ensure that at least a proportion of public money going to private companies is focused on areas where there is need, advantage and outcomes which can be taken to market. They encourage linkages between researchers and the business sector. They encourage the flow of ideas and knowledge into new products and services.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Education and training: we prepare a skilled and dynamic science-qualified workforce, and lay the foundations for lifelong science literacy in the community.</strong> There is a national interest and we would do well to remember it. Action in this area will require appropriate co-ordination and cooperation between different levels of government. We can learn from others, including federations, about how to support teachers both in-service and pre-service, and how to use curricula and assessment to enhance learning through inspirational teaching.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Research: Australian science will contribute knowledge to a world that relies on a continuous flow of new ideas and their application.</strong> Like many other countries, we can develop strategic research priority areas – not using all available funding support, and not neglecting basic research that is the foundation of so much knowledge that we can apply. But we can and should align, focus and scale.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>International engagement: Australian science will position Australia as a respected, important and able partner in a changing world, for both domestic and global benefit.</strong> We should develop strategic government-to-government partnerships that are funded. We should also look to using better the Australian science base and work within our region to establish an Asian Area Research Zone that facilitates work on shared priorities as well as building infrastructure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What would such a strategy cost us? Only effort, commitment and willpower.</p>
<p>What are the costs of inaction? The deficit we would leave behind. I hope our children will not find out.</p>
<p>The choice is ours to make.</p>
<p>That is why we should take inspiration from people like Jack Beale – people who thought deeply and acted boldly. He was that rarest of combinations, a politician with a background in (and passion for) science.</p>
<p>He was rare then, he would still be rare. Eleven of the current 150 House of Representatives Members and 11 of the 76 Senators have a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members">science qualification</a>, and a handful more have worked in related fields.</p>
<p>Which raises an important question, do you have to have studied science, technology, engineering or mathematics to understand the role they play in a nation’s fate?</p>
<p>In answering that, I’m reminded of a quote from a lawyer who said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I suppose that if we were to ask ourselves what in the last 20 years, up to 50 years, had been the great distinguishing feature of this century apart from wars and political confusions, the answer would be the flowering of science and the growing application of science through technology to the problems, the practical workaday problems of the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The lawyer was Prime Minister <a href="http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/browse.php?did=598.">Robert Menzies</a>. The year was 1962. The occasion was the opening of a major piece of research infrastructure at CSIRO.</p>
<p>He understood then, as we must now, that if science is to flower and be applied to our practical workaday problems; if it is to be central to our future, we must be mindful of what it needs to be able to do for us what we want it to do. And provide it.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb is the Chief Scientist of Australia.</span></em></p>This is a transcript of the 2014 Jack Beale Lecture on the Global Environment, hosted at the University of New South Wales. Tonight I want to talk about the future. I know that it’s not a novel thing to…Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/220752014-02-10T19:33:16Z2014-02-10T19:33:16ZAustralia’s future depends on a strong science focus today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40842/original/psnmpspx-1391647104.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What will the nation look like in 2025?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>AUSTRALIA 2025: How will science address the challenges of the future? In collaboration with Australia’s chief scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153/profile_bio">Ian Chubb</a>, we’re asking how each science discipline will contribute to Australia now and in the future. In this introductory article, Professor Chubb outlines an aspiration for 2025.</em></p>
<p>We are often told in public commentary that the Australian economy is in transition – that we need to use our talents and skills to cope with changes in demand for commodities, and develop high value add goods and services for local and international markets.</p>
<p>The question is: what would it take to make that transition?</p>
<p>We can identify areas where we need to make sure we have action. It is suggested, for example, that Australia could be a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-cant-feed-the-world-but-it-can-help-11269">food bowl</a>, that we could have a burgeoning <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/biotechnology">biotechnology sector</a>, that we need to understand any <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/climate-change-adaptation">impact</a> of planetary warming on us and how different regions will be affected. </p>
<p>We need to be alert to the risk of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/pandemic">pandemics</a> and the overall health of our whole population, and be concerned about our security both <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/national-security">national</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/computer-crime-is-on-the-rise-20908">personal</a>. The list goes on.</p>
<p>Science and the knowledge it provides, along with its applications, will help us manage, mitigate, adapt or even discover solutions to the problems we know about, and allow us to tackle others as they emerge. It is not a big stretch to suggest that science will be close to the core of most of the “solutions” we develop. </p>
<p>It will not be science on its own, though; the humanities and the social science disciplines will play their part. </p>
<p>Of course, part of ensuring our best possible future is learning from past experience. But we also need to understand what is happening to our planet right now: to the oceans, the atmosphere and health, and we need the capability to innovate to make life better for more people.</p>
<h2>Links in the chain</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1191&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1191&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1191&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40843/original/5qhsk249-1391647230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/holyshizzbombs/7601223826/sizes/l/">Flickr/Kristen Leigh Photo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We know that addressing most issues will need an interdisciplinary approach. There is little room to doubt that some (probably most) of the big issues that confront us fall outside the boundaries of a single scientific discipline. </p>
<p>But somehow, the notion that we need the disciplines to work together appears to have led to a diminished focus on the disciplines themselves. This would be a particular problem if that loss of focus was on those disciplines that are at the core of many others: physics, chemistry and mathematics. </p>
<p>The need for strong disciplines is the focus of this series.</p>
<p>We have long known that a chain is as strong as its weakest link. It is inconceivable that we could do what we need to do, let alone do what we should do, if any or all the disciplines that underpin our efforts are weak. </p>
<p>If we are to ensure that they are not weak, we have to explain why they are important. We have to do so in a context where they appear to be taken for granted. </p>
<p>Science has been part of our very existence for a long time – from helping early <em>Homo sapiens</em> to respond to the challenges of survival in unstable environments. </p>
<p>So is that why we seem to take it for granted? Do we presume that science will be there when we need it, because it always has been? </p>
<p>We can’t afford the presumption. We don’t all have to be scientists or technologists or engineers or mathematicians, but enough of us do. We have to work to ensure that those among us who want to be scientists have available the best possible opportunities and to produce knowledge we can then use to sustain us. </p>
<p>We began by thinking (in very broad terms) what Australia could aim to be by 2025. Naturally we looked at all that was said and written about the future – and we were fortunate to have just emerged from an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/election-2013">election campaign</a> in which there was some focus on a national aspiration. </p>
<p>We pulled it all together to produce a succinct statement broadly outlining what we took to be the key elements in what we saw and heard:</p>
<h2>The aspiration</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia in 2025 will be strong, prosperous, healthy and secure and positioned to benefit all Australians in a rapidly changing world. </p>
<p>We are told that Australia will need a diverse economy built on sustainable productivity growth, knowledge-based industries and high value goods and services.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We approached 12 senior figures in a range of disciplines and invited them each to prepare a 1,200-word piece answering the question: how will your discipline/area help to realise this aspiration? </p>
<p>To broaden the perspective, we invited two other experts to write 200-word comments on the same question – not critiques of the longer article, but their view.</p>
<p>The series will be co-published in <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/australia-2025-series">The Conversation</a> and through the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/02/australia-2025-smart-science/">Office of the Chief Scientist</a>. </p>
<p>I hope that you find the series interesting, useful and, indeed, stimulating. In particular, I hope that secondary school students will see that these (and other) disciplines are such key contributors to Australia’s future, and so compellingly interesting in themselves, that their study choices will be made easy. </p>
<hr>
<p><br>
<strong>Listen to an interview with Ian Chubb on the <a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/2014/02/10/ian-chubb/">Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast</a>.</strong></p>
<p><br>
<strong>This article is part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/australia-2025-series">Australia 2025: smart science series</a>, co-published with the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/02/australia-2025-smart-science/">Office of the Chief Scientist</a>. <br>
Further reading:<br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/physics-a-fundamental-force-for-future-security-22121">Physics: a fundamental force for future security</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/proteins-to-plastics-chemistry-as-a-dynamic-discipline-22123">Proteins to plastics: chemistry as a dynamic discipline</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/optimising-the-future-with-mathematics-22122">Optimising the future with mathematics</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-nurture-growth-and-prosperity-through-biology-22255">Australia can nurture growth and prosperity through biology</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-healthy-future-lets-put-medical-science-under-the-microscope-23190">A healthy future? Let’s put medical science under the microscope</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/groundbreaking-earth-sciences-for-a-smart-and-lucky-country-22254">Groundbreaking earth sciences for a smart – and lucky – country</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/to-reach-for-the-stars-australia-must-focus-on-astronomy-22124">To reach for the stars, Australia must focus on astronomy</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/marine-science-challenges-for-a-growing-blue-economy-22845">Marine science: challenges for a growing ‘blue economy’</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/building-the-nation-will-be-impossible-without-engineers-23191">Building the nation will be impossible without engineers</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-got-ict-talent-so-how-do-we-make-the-most-of-it-22842">Australia’s got ICT talent – so how do we make the most of it?</a><br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/agriculture-in-australia-growing-more-than-our-farming-future-22843">Agriculture in Australia: growing more than our farming future</a></strong> </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22075/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>AUSTRALIA 2025: How will science address the challenges of the future? In collaboration with Australia’s chief scientist Ian Chubb, we’re asking how each science discipline will contribute to Australia…Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.