Australia's mining industry principals have received low marks for leadership in a number of areas over the past decade. The industry's collective inability to consistently deliver acceptable returns to investors, its struggle to land effective blows in national political debate, its failure to ward off overseas corporate raiders and its backfoot role overseeing the progression of major native title and environmental reforms, are several of the key fronts on which the mettle of mining leaders has been called into question.
But perhaps the battle that is most illustrative of the industry's leadership shortcomings is one that, until now, has received little public scrutiny. The battle to win the hearts and minds of tomorrow's industry professionals and tradespeople is being lost on several fronts. Human resource oversupply has turned to a dearth problem of great magnitude. And this will only be exacerbated as the industry moves into a new boom phase. As metal prices rise and mineral exploration levels escalate, there won’t be enough new graduates to supply the industry.
Federal Labor leader Simon Crean's recently announced plan to reshape the diesel fuel rebate scheme to help fund a new education package put minerals tertiary education fleetingly on the news pages of national papers. The proposal was attacked by mining industry bodies, but it came tantalisingly close to spilling some light on issues which are threatening the international competitiveness of Australia's biggest export industry.
Minerals tertiary education, as highlighted in a report released in May this year by the four-year-old Minerals Tertiary Education Council (MTEC), is in a parlous state in Australia and elsewhere. The extent of funding required to rebuild a sustainable national minerals education program is the subject of guesswork. But producing workable solutions to the education crisis presents a test of leadership the Australian mining industry cannot afford to fail.
Funding of education programs themselves -- in collaboration with the universities that are providing graduate courses -- is only one dilemma examined by MTEC. There is also the pressing need for a concerted and cohesive effort to tackle the much broader problem of how the industry sells itself to future generations of miners, tradespeople, professionals and managers. There is currently no central plan to fund this effort.
Australia's Mining Monthly's research into the country's minerals education crisis has revealed a raft of challenges not only for those behind the remodelling of secondary and tertiary education programs, but also for the industry captains who must decide what type of people their businesses will require in the future, what levels of skills and knowledge, where they will be sourced and how sufficient numbers will be sustained so that recurring shortages don't push wages and salaries through the roof.
What cannot be understated is the extent of interest and passion evident in communication with a wide range of people within the minerals industry -- from industry bodies, the industry itself across various levels, the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and university academics. The issues are bold and clear, and there is ample realisation of the need for progress and solutions, but cogs in the system that will make the wheels turn do not appear to be properly developed.
MCA members perhaps did not realise the extent of the industry's “people crisis” until the release of the landmark 1998 discussion paper, Back from the Brink, Reshaping Minerals Tertiary Education, which delved into an apparent shortage of qualified professionals. On the back of the report's findings, MTEC was formed to provide a central body to collaborate the views and input of all industry players and provide the impetus to tackle the main issues head on. Now, four years later, the group has reported in a strategic review that there is still a long way to go. Authors, University of New South Wales professor Jim Galvin and former National Tertiary Education Taskforce chairman Dick Carter, painted a clear picture. The pair reported that the minerals tertiary education system in Australia was "fragmented, unstable and fragile" and, with few exceptions, many programs were not viable under present circumstances. Impacts identified in Back from the Brink have materialised, while many other external factors are now in the equation: significant consolidation of the minerals industry, university funding cuts and restructuring, the shrinking pool of secondary students studying maths and science, and a declining image of the industry as a career of choice.
There is also the suggestion that the Australian community sees mining as outdated and unsafe and the industry is now realising it must sell itself better. Although the public may recognise the value of the industry to Australia’s economy, reports of environmental damage, land stripping and union bashing in the mainstream media continue to harm its image.
However, MTEC executive director Kevin Tuckwell believes community views are not as negative as many would think, while for some, the industry and its role in Australia's economy are just not on their radar screens. “The minerals council’s role is to try to ensure that the Australian people and governments are aware of the contribution the minerals industry makes to Australia’s high standard of living and level of technological advancement,” he said. “In 2001-02, the minerals industry generated $42 billion in export revenue, or around 28% of total exports of goods and services. This is an important sector when measured in terms of its impact on Australia and this needs to be emphasised more.”
Australia’s mining industry has a huge appetite for skilled people and is an international leader in its use of advanced technology and innovative mining practices. But as the industry’s intellectual capital shrinks, it is increasingly feeling the pinch from low graduate intakes and years of purging older, experienced personnel as part of “restructuring” at mine sites and company head offices. The general belief in industry circles is that something has to give. But it needs more than a knowledge of the issues, it needs to become part of the dedicated drive to tackle them head on. It still seems that too few are taking the lead. Many are prepared to be led, but that may not be enough.
This was driven home strongly by the small number of industry submissions to the MTEC study, highlighting either lack of awareness of the issues at the coalface or poor knowledge and understanding of MTEC objectives. Galvin said the meagre response belied the priority being given to minerals tertiary education by the industry, but was perhaps more reflective of time demands being put on senior management and the number of consultants and industry members who were not aligned with the MCA and therefore had no exposure to the initiative. MTEC’s inadequate networking with middle managers was also highlighted. “There is no doubting the commitment to minerals tertiary education of some of the companies that did not put in a submission,” Galvin said. “Their senior management is on a number of advisory boards to schools of minerals education and, therefore, have a good awareness of the challenges facing minerals tertiary education.”Continues.
