Editorial - 13 April 2001

Australia's Public Universities - Are They Good Enough?

Exactly half-a-year ago the Australian Senate referred an inquiry "into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs" to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee. There are eight main terms of reference which cover: current funding arrangements, increasing reliance on private funding, public liability consequences of commercial activity, equality of availability, attracting and retaining good staff, effect of universities on economic growth, university regulation, e.g. accreditations and finally the sufficiency or otherwise of obtaining independent advice on higher educational matters.

Seventy-three submissions were sent to the committee of which fifty-four can be scrutinised. Some make very interesting reading. The following rather cynical (realistic?) excerpt is all too understandable:

"Nothing will be said to this inquiry that has not been said to previous inquiries. Indeed in the short time available, the Inquiry is certain to receive from the NTEU, the AVCC and all the other interested groups and institutions a set of 'cut and paste jobs' most of which, because of the wonders of modern communications, are already in the public domain. All the likely recommendations have already been presented. All the information of relevance is available. We are told that this is not a political exercise. While we have a tertiary education system dominated by political agendas and overpowering bureaucracies, everything is political."

Who make up the committee?
            Senator Tierney (Chair, Lib),
               Senator Carr (Deputy Chair, ALP),
               Senators Brandis (Lib), Collins (ALP), Ferris (Lib) and Stott Despoja (AD)
You may recall that Senators Tierney and Carr were antagonists on an SBS Insight forum on March 8 which was the subject of an Op-Ed piece on TFW entitled Don't panic- it's just a matter of definition. As the man said, "everything is political."

Just for the record, hearing dates and venues according to the committee's Web page when last accessed (April 13^th) are given as:

22 March - Brisbane - Conservatorium of Music, Southbank campus, Griffith University
26 April - Hobart - Venue to be finalised
30 April - Darwin - University of the Northern Territory and Batchelor Institute
14-15 May - Melbourne - Venue to be finalised
22 June - Canberra - Room 2S1, Parliament House
2-3 July - Adelaide and Whyalla - University of Adelaide and University of South Australia
5 July - Perth - Venue to be finalised
12-13 July - Regional Queensland - Venue to be finalised
17-18 July - Sydney - Venue to be finalised
19 July - Newcastle - Venue to be finalised

The Committee is due to report by the first sitting day in August 2001.

Clearly a significant sum will be spent on this venture. And it is not unreasonable to ask just to what end are these resources expended? How well prepared will the committee members be during these hearings? Has the committee sought advice other than that obtained through the usual formal request for submissions? How well acquainted are the members of the committee with first rank universities in Europe and North America so as to allow them a proper yardstick for judgment? And finally, will those who actually draft consequential legislation, i.e. the cabinet, take any active notice? If not, why is tax payers' money spent on the fares, accommodation, care and nourishing, hiring of venues and publication costs?

Many years ago when the Frazer Government held sway, the then Minister for Science (a National Party member) visited one of the Commonwealth's research establishments. He was accompanied by his special assistant, a product of Duntroon, who also happened to hold a PhD in physical chemistry. During lunch, and out of earshot of the minister, the assistant entered into conversation with several of the more junior scientists of the establishment, and the subject of chemical defleecing arose, an area in which the Government was investing millions of dollars. The Duntroon graduate was asked if the minister was aware that there was no credible evidence that such an approach was plausible, in fact no critical cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken and it was questionable that even if a grazer were given a preparation free of charge, that it could compete with conventional mechanical shearing. Yes, the minister did realize that that was most probably so. Then why waste very considerable resources. "Because the Government needs the rural community to believe that it is active in its interests," was the reply.

There was no sense in pursuing the issue, and the conversation moved on.

To wind up with a few of the observations submitted to the committee regarding the capacity of public universities to meet Australia's higher education needs.

"Why not give those universities which see themselves as serious players on the world academic scene sufficient institutional autonomy and flexibility to achieve their goals? Then they may act as beacons to guide and inspire other institutions of higher education in Australia to emulate some facets of their achievements; (cf. Group of Eight, 2000)."

"The system as a whole will not become world class under present financial arrangements. The lack of real support for the plethora of reports in recent years shows that the political will to achieve this is absent."

"Why is the issue of falling standards across the system not more widely acknowledged? Essentially because the first institution to do so is liable to suffer a drop in applications to enrol, particularly from the brighter students and fee-paying students, risking a drop in EFTSU-based funding and fee income, and endangering prestige and job security."

"The changes of the last decade to the pattern of funding for universities have produced a significant incentive to lower standards. There are now enough examples in the public domain for it to be clear that the incentive has been accepted by at least some parts of the university system, producing a serious devaluing of the currency of Australian degree qualifications."

"The recent Government 'Innovation Statement', while it is to be welcomed for the stimulus it will eventually provide in science and technology, nevertheless falls far short of addressing the serious infrastructure problems now facing universities as a result of the real decrease in basic funding for research and teaching across the board. The Statement also appears to almost completely ignore the serious funding crisis in non-science and technology areas.
...increased emphasis on universities as business enterprises and the pressure to generate external funding and to develop industry partnerships all combine to threaten the objectivity and integrity that has traditionally been associated with university-based research."

  Although the wit of the nation is in the balance, don't hold your breath.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web