As the price of Australia’s two biggest exports, coal and iron ore, fall sharply, it seems logical that we protect ourselves the best way we can. Perhaps, the most effective way to do this is to focus our attention through policy and investment on building-up our knowledge economy to lift our economic productivity and the long-term sustainability of our society and culture.
Contrary to this possible strategic focus for Australia, the Bradley Review rejected the idea of directly funding “third stream” activities or knowledge engagement activities that would in turn have helped to build and strengthen our economy in a time when it is perhaps most needed.
This recommendation only adds salt to the wound for those who are strong advocates of heavy investment in the third stream as the former Minister for Education, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, like-wise acknowledged the importance of the third stream, yet believed that activities, such as knowledge transfer and partnerships, should be funded indirectly. Australia, perhaps, may lose out in optimising its global competitiveness as a knowledge economy as the British continue to fund its burgeoning knowledge economy directly and new competitors, such as India rise to fame in areas, such as biotechnology…
In your opinion, do you think that the Bradley Review should have paid more attention to the importance of the knowledge economy and to the third stream?
Do you think that the wider higher education sector and the populous have a clear idea of the meaning and the benefits of knowledge economy and third stream activities?
Should Federal and State governments be doing more to support the development of a national knowledge-based economy? We invite you to submit a response to the above questions. All submissions will be published on this website – please respond in the comment section below.