Date: 18/06/2009

Source: Inkatha Freedom Party

Title: IFP: Smith: Speech on the Science and Technology budget vote

Chairperson

I would like to congratulate the Minister, her deputy and the chair of
the committee on their appointments. I look forward to working with
them and in engaging them on issues pertinent to a department whose
critical role is too often not understood. I would like to make just 3
brief points.

First, the Minister notes in her forward to the 2009/10 Corporate
Strategy that ?we will measure success by the level to which science
and technology play a driving role in enhancing productivity, economic
growth and socio-economic development?. I agree with this, but may I
suggest it is time to do some measuring. You will have noticed in the
WEF report last week that SA is ranked Africa?s second-most productive
country after Tunisia. What is it that Tunisia is doing better than
us? Why are we second rather than first? Ditto wrt the contribution of
the S&T sector to GDP growth. Is there sufficient innovation to drive
the growth we seek? In respect of the Technology Achievement Index,
how do we currently stand in relation to what we deem our competitor
countries to be ? the last study I saw was in 2001. Crucial for all of
these questions - are the trends positive and are we doing enough?

Second, is R&D?s share of GDP, and the 1% target which we are about to
reach. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with 1%, and in the
context of our previously much lower percentage, it is a manageable
target. But I want to highlight the fact that from an international
perspective, 1% is not particularly ambitious. The OECD average is
over 2.1%, and there are countries well above this ? Sweden at 4.27%,
Finland at 3.46%, Japan at 3.12% and so on. I would like to suggest,
particularly since we are now at the 1% level, that the target be
immediately doubled and that we aspire to 2% of GDP in a further 10
years, by say 2020, and that it be ramped up by 0.1% each year from
2010. You don?t build a knowledge economy by being timid.

Third, although there is an initiative to finalise an SET human
capital development strategy, serious concerns remain. One example is
the imminent retirement of a large cohort of aging S&T practitioners,
exacerbated by the retirement age policies of some of our tertiary
institutions. Another is the ratio of FTE researchers to population ?
our 2.2:1,000 compares poorly with the best performers - Sweden at
10.6, Japan at 9.9, Norway at 8.7, France at 7.5 and Russia at 7.4.
In reality, our 18,572 FTE researchers, is a pitifully low number and
should be dramatically increased. Then there is the NRF funding
squabble which appears to have left much of the S & T sector in the
lurch. And of crucial importance is the lack of pro-SET outputs in our
schooling system - just yesterday, eg, internally-acclaimed Prof Dyasi
criticised what he called the ?unscientific teaching of science?,
lamenting the lack of appropriate pedagogics in our schools.

Chair, the IFP supports the Dept?s objectives and we trust the next 5
years sees ever-greater emphasis being placed on what the department
is focussed on. We support the budget vote.