The Peter Principle: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."

Watching the performance of members of John Howard's Coalition Cabinet since the Treasurer, Peter Costello, brought down the 2003/04 Budget this past May there appear distinct signs that the principle laid down by Laurence Peter in 1968 is as relevant today as it was 35 years ago. The recent reshuffling of Cabinet ministers certainly suggests it, and the contortions exhibited by the now Minister for Health and Aging, Tony Abbott, when confronted by glaring public-hospital visiting specialists isn't enhancing the Cabinet's image of being competent to manage the Nation's affairs just at the moment.

Meanwhile Brendan Nelson, much as he desires to get out from under his Education, Science and Training portfolios has been left with the education reforms he is trying to visit on Australia's universities. The enormity of Dr Nelson's "Counter Reformation" of higher education has surfaced in stages and with the increasing realisation by university staffs, students and administrations of what he is perpetrating, resistance has increased by a progressively hostile university sector. Unless he is seen to calm the waters quickly he will have, in all probability, ended his chances for Cabinet advancement and faces the prospect of following Bronwyn Bishop into political limbo. 

By far the greatest media interest has centred on university course fee rises, much less on the palpable degradation that has affected university infrastructure and staff for more than a decade.*  It's therefore interesting to read the recent assessment commissioned by the Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee from Bruce Chapman and Chris Ryan, Higher Education Financing and Student Access: A Review of the Literature.

On the basis of their analysis Chapman and Ryan conclude:

HECS has not resulted in decreases in the participation of prospective students from relatively poor families, although the absolute increases were higher for relatively advantaged students, especially in the middle of the wealth distribution.
    There was a small decrease in the total number of applications after the 1997 changes to HECS, but no apparent decreases in commencements of members of low socioeconomic groups, except perhaps for a small number of males with respect to courses with the highest charges.

    The research findings suggest that if it is introduced HECS-HELP [Higher Education Contribution Scheme Higher Education Loan Program] is similarly unlikely to have a significant effect on enrolments, although it is possible that there will be a small fall in the number of applications.

The analysis is not concerned with what net increase in revenue the universities will realise through the fee increases or the increased availability of places for full fee paying students. Or its relative contribution to what is needed to bring the university sector out of the crisis it is facing. Such analyses either by DEST, the universities or an independent body are not in evidence. Considering the angst that has been aroused, there should have been.  The recent posturing by Dr Nelson suggests he views the matter as a test of will – who's gonna blink first?

    In this context it is worth remembering once again the comment made by the minister when giving the Chalmers Oration, at the Flinders Medical Centre in Adelaide this past July, "[I]n relation to Universities, [the Prime Minister's] letter [of ministerial appointment] said that I should understand and enunciate the importance of higher education to the Australian community, and I should continue to progress workplace relations reform in the sector."

The Department of Education, Science and Training last week released the review by Professor Kwong Lee Dow – Australia's Teachers: Australia's Future which highlights the inadequacies in current primary and secondary school education. The review focused on "Advancing Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics", and the Minister for Science, Peter McGauran said on Wednesday, "I'm concerned ...in regard to student numbers in the enabling sciences. It's an enormous issue in physics and in mathematics especially. We know that. It is a major focus for us now and into the future. ...We will work our way through [Professor Quang Kee Dow's] number of recommendations. ...It's a big issue. There's no easy answer."

Later on in his National Press Club debate with the shadow minister for science, Kim Carr, Mr. McGauran said, "I’m as concerned as everybody else gathered here and further afield in regard to student numbers in the enabling sciences.  It’s an enormous issue in physics and in mathematics especially.  We know that.  The Government has already taken some action in regard to science awareness programs targeting secondary schools, assisting professional development of science teachers, support of the Mathematics Institute and so on.  It is a major focus for us now and into the future."

That support for the Australian Mathematical Science Institute is not exactly munificent. In fact initial funding of $1 million was obtained from the Victorian Government through its Science, Technology and Innovation infrastructure grants program. The current Commonwealth contribution is significantly less. The progressive disintegration of the enabling sciences at our universities continues so when the Minister for Science tells us the problem, "is a major focus for us now and into the future," there is yet to be significant evidence that the "focus" is fostering meaningful support.

John Howard's coalition assumed government 7½ years ago. Now the Minister for Science concedes that, like Apollo 13 "we have a problem." Whether or not he cleared that observation with his immediate superior is not known, and whether or not serious measures for improvement are even being contemplated let alone implemented are moot points. But the interim report from the DEST commissioned review Mapping Australia's Science and Innovation System points up that there are signs that our human capital in the enabling sciences and engineering is at risk.  There has been an absolute decline in the number of science and engineering graduates since 1996, a fall of 6.5%.

Finally, in the McGauran – Carr debate Senator Carr promised in regard to supporting research and innovation:

[W]e’re announcing a major statement in this area.  A national research and innovation strategy will be announced over the coming period with Simon Crean and myself basically putting forward solutions to the following issues:  a weakening of research capacities of our research universities, but also our regional universities; the erosion in our public research agencies; the declining of the national investment in research and development; the slippage in our research performance; a wastage of our national IP; the poor uptake in terms of commercialisation; the imbalance in our national research effort; the decline in the quality of maths and science teaching in our schools; and the failure of Government to effectively coordinate research effort across the Commonwealth and between the Commonwealth and the States.

It remains to be seen what the parturition of Senator Carr's conception will produce. If nothing else, it ought to be more substantial than that which either the Democrats or the Greens have so far delivered.

*see Satis Arnold's Ochham's Razor December 20, 1998.

  NBEET report on Higher Education Research Infrastructure, August 1993

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web