Trump's attacks on academia offers chance for Australia
Donald Trump's offensive on top US universities could create a golden opportunity for Australia to become a world leader.
The US president has stripped billions in grant money from Harvard University, claiming it is a hotbed of anti-Semitism after the school pushed back on his administration's demands for changes to its leadership, governance and admissions policies.
Millions more has been slashed from other institutions and Australia - as the US's largest research partner - has found itself in the crossfire, with up to $386 million at risk according to Australian Academy of Science estimates.
But it could also present a chance for Australia, says UNSW professor Richard Holden and Australian National University former vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt.
"What's happening to us - research and researchers - is shocking," Professor Holden told the National Press Club on Wednesday.
"But this act of American self-harm is our opportunity and it's an opportunity that has never arisen before and may never arise again.
"With the US stepping back from its leadership role, Australia has a chance to step up."
As US researchers look to move their labs, families and lives abroad, Australia could become an attractive destination.
Prof Holden acknowledged bringing researchers Down Under would be an expensive endeavour, particularly as many universities take a scalpel to their bottom line, but he maintained it was a "once-in-a-generation moment" that should be seized.
Otherwise, Australia's steadily decreasing investment in research and development could have "enormous" consequences for the future, Professor Schmidt warned.
"I look around and I'm actually scared," he told the press club.
Australia's government investment in sovereign research capability was a third higher 15 years ago relative to GDP.
As a result of steady, bipartisan disinvestment, institutions have become "addicted" to funding research through international student income even as the federal government tries to cut their numbers.
Prof Schmidt also pointed to China as a warning of what could happen if Australia did not boost research spending.
While Australia's research and development spending has steadily declined, Beijing's has surged, increasing by 8.3 per cent in 2024 alone.
The benefits of this research were yet to occur, Prof Schmidt said, but it remained the "smart thing to do".
"I want you to think about what their increase and our decrease means for Australia's future and economic and security environment," he said.
"We're going to either be left behind or we're going to pedal hard and go along side-by-side with them.
"It's our choice, our destiny."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
32 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump v Musk is the final battle before a catastrophe
In any case, against total federal spending last year of nearly $US7 trillion, it is but a drop in the ocean, and only goes to show how difficult it is to find serious savings in government administration, even when given a free hand with the headcount. The rampant corruption and incompetence that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency expected to find in the Washington and wider government machine has turned out to be largely an illusion, and many of the cuts he has managed to make seem to have done more harm than good. This is not to argue that it's not worth trying, or that you cannot make public services more efficient. But it takes time, substantial upfront investment, and the savings are generally not as big as anticipated. To nobody's great surprise, it transpires that the skills needed to run a successful business do not transfer easily to the public sector, where the disciplines of the bottom line, the profit motive and competitive markets don't exist. Loading The shame of it is that the Musk who built Tesla and SpaceX into two of the world's most successful companies over a period of nearly two decades has been almost entirely absent while at DOGE these past four or five months. Instead, we have seen a reckless, chainsaw-wielding – and if the American press is to be believed, drug-fuelled – Musk who, like his one-time boss Donald Trump, seems to regard government more as performative art than public service. We can all point to myriad examples of public sector waste, of unfathomable spending decisions and stultifying, jobsworth bureaucracy, but the imagined savings from addressing these things nearly always turn out to be a mirage. In Britain, Nigel Farage's Reform UK claims there is £7 billion to be saved by scrapping public sector spending on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. Sadly, no such saving exists. Recent government figures showed just £27 million ($56 million) was spent by the civil service on DEI measures during 2022-23. This might well be £27m too much, but it is not going to solve Britain's debt crisis. The two big cash-burners in advanced economies' state spending are public sector salaries and welfare, and both desperately need to be addressed if Western democracies are ever to extract themselves from now mountainous debt. Musk has comprehensively failed on the first of these missions, and not surprisingly so. The sort of productivity-improving automation and digitalisation we see widely applied in the private sector to stay competitive is a marathon, not a sprint, and it requires precision in planning and execution. None of these characteristics was on display from the tech bros sent in to tackle the bloated size of the American state. Their approach was one of slash and burn rather than the slow, methodical re-engineering of government needed to achieve sustainable savings and productivity improvement. What's more, Trump shows little or no appetite for meaningful entitlement reform. OK, some attempt is being made to trim spiralling Medicaid spending, but it's half-hearted and is really only there as a gesture to appease fiscal hawks among House Republicans. Nobody can tell you exactly when the storm will break, but Musk's failure brings the final reckoning that much closer. The bottom line is that Trump is as much a creature of fantasy economics as any. He wants both low taxes and high spending, and expects economic growth to make up the difference. It's the same delusion as Liz Truss, only very much more dangerous in its seeming rejection of fiscal orthodoxies. Unlike Britain, America is the beating heart of the global financial system, and if US debt markets go belly-up they'll take everyone else down with them. Back here in Britain, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, shows similarly little sign of getting to grips with the leviathan of public spending as she puts the finishing touches to next Wednesday's spending review. Public sector salary costs are rising, not falling, and while ministers talk the talk on welfare reform, their approach to the issue is no more convincing than that of Trump. It's just a little tinkering around the edges. Simply getting working-age benefits back to their pre-pandemic level would save £49 billion a year – more than enough to avoid tax rises and fund the desired increase in defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP, Jeremy Hunt, Reeves' Conservative predecessor as chancellor, points out. Spending on disability benefits alone has surged from £37 billion just before the pandemic to £56 billion now, much more than in any comparable economy, with the bulk of the growth coming from mental health conditions. Loading Yet Reeves used up almost all her political capital axing the winter fuel allowance to all but the poorest pensioners, a course of action that saves only £1.5 billion a year. This has left her with virtually no space for more serious entitlement reform. In both the US and Britain, cutting state spending back to size is simply not happening on the scale needed to stem the rising tide of debt. Attempts by Musk to draw a line in the sand have ended in acrimony and recrimination. Nobody can tell you exactly when the storm will break, but Musk's failure brings the final reckoning that much closer.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says
Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Albo urged to go hard on Trump
Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. Nationals leader David Littleproud says the US needs Australian beef. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. Australian beef exports to the US have climbed this year despite US tariffs. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his government will not 'compromise' Australia's biosecurity laws for a US tariff carve out. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.
