Where is the Ministry for Science?

[i-need-a-martini]

What about Innovation? Research? Ageing?

Or even Tourism?

And how come Arts gets lumbered in with the Attorney Generals busy portfolio?

Yet Border Protection gets it's own ministry rather than falling under the obvious category of Defence. An entire ministry for a handful of people that apparently aren't going to be coming here anymore?

[**meep**]

I can't see where I brought up afghanistan, can you?

No idea.   Comparisons have been made between our new cabinet and afghanistan on a  couple of threads discussing our ministers. 

[master*and*commander]

Could this be Tony Abbott's way of keeping Science and Religion seperate? Could Tony Abbott be attempting to diminsh Science in an effort to elevate and promote his religious beliefs?

[not_an_eloi]

strife from within the coalition party, as a backbencher speaks up over the ministry portfolio (and the PPL scheme)

   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-17/dennis-jensen-hits-out-at-science-confusion-in-new-ministry/49...

[not_an_eloi]

more CUTS to the CSIRO, no risk

[cherry*135]

---

@**meep** wrote:

I can't see where I brought up afghanistan, can you?

No idea.   Comparisons have been made between our new cabinet and afghanistan on a  couple of threads discussing our ministers. 

---

This thread is specifically about Aust no longer having a Ministry for Science though, not about how many female MP's in the new ministry (which other threads covered).

[**meep**]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@**meep** wrote:

it will be shared between the Industry and Education...

but hey, what are you worried about?  Afghanistan has 3 female ministers but no ministry  of science...

---

I can't see where I brought up afghanistan, can you?

And since when do you 'share' something as pivotal as Science. It seems to me that it is less about sharing and more about diffusing.

It's an astounding ommission that says much about where the government expects us to be placed globally and in the future.

For such a small country Australia has always been a leader in som many scientific fields because we have always given it the attention it deserves.

I suspect that will no longer be the case.

---

Perhaps we should wait and see. Professor Les Field - secretary for science policy at the Australian Academy of Science: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3849932.htm

[i-need-a-martini]

Jensen is right on the money with the concerns many people would have about the lack of a science portfolio. To place it in a portfolio as part of the Indsutry ministry is an admission that scientific research is of no consequence in this country.

Perhaps he has hit the nail on the head with this comment: "I mean we've got a Minister for Sport for God's sake, but we don't have a Minister for Science...I guess this is the problem with not having people of scientific bent in decision-making processes, where people don't understand science generally."

Tony gets sport. He doesn't get science. Is it as simple as that?

[**meep**]

Thank you Am.   You have no issues with the reference to Harry Porter though?

OK

(btw, Muggsy, neither do I )

[cherry*135]

It was the OP that queried your post originally, not me. I could see what she meant.

Who is Harry Porter?  don't answer that.

[**meep**]

---

@master*and*commander wrote:

Could this be Tony Abbott's way of keeping Science and Religion seperate? Could Tony Abbott be attempting to diminsh Science in an effort to elevate and promote his religious beliefs?

---

Absolutely.  I am 100% convinced that's what he intends to achieve.   Does anyone actually doubt that?