Since Prime Minister John Howard reshuffled his ministerial portfolios following the last federal election and Brendan Nelson was anointed Minister for Education, Science and Training, the minister has had an on-again-off-again flirtation with the media. With the bringing down of the 2003/04 budget last week it has turned into requited infatuation.

Nearly all of the attention focused on the higher education reform package endorsed by Cabinet has been on the direct effect on student fees and how they will be defrayed. Some interest has been shown on the effect on universities' incomes; no one, however, has made even a crude quantitative assessment. The fact is we're left with the distinct impression the neither the Minister, his spokespeople, the media commentators nor university administrators have anything near a full understanding of the consequences of Dr. Nelson's reforms.

So, for example, has Alan Gilbert's University of Melbourne agonised over its copy of Excel^® to see what various reasonable scenarios indicate what its income would be with the changes to fee charging and loan schemes, and how much discretionary income it will derive? Certainly Professor Gilbert's opinion piece in the May 15^th Australian other than saying the reformation will be a good thing gives no indication that any such analyses have been done.

And the forty-eight page policy statement issued by Dr. Nelson with the release of the budget papers doesn't show cost benefit analyses while Robert Manne, professor of politics at LaTrobe, on several days reflection, has added little to the discussion in his article in the May 19^th issue of The Sydney Morning Herald saying, The most important element in the Nelson reform is the plan to pump substantial new money into higher education, without a taxpayer contribution of a substantial kind. The operative concepts being "substantial" and "without taxpayer contribution". But by the Minister's own reckoning $800 million of the promised $1.5 billion is for the student loan schemes, repayment of which will be sometime in the future, while Professor Manne, hardly alone, doesn't give an analysis of what the university sector really requires to get into the top 10 of OECD nations.
    Not to worry, we've just retrieved our No.1 spot as a cricket test nation and have won 20 consecutive one-day matches.

Barry McGaw, of the OECD (Unicorn Vol 26, No 2) wrote in July 2000, Perhaps the most frequently used indicator of the level of investment in education is the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) committed to education. The values of this indicator, including both public and private expenditure, for 28 OECD countries... [show] Australia ranks 17^th in overall percentage and 20^th if only public expenditure is considered. Those ought to be a sobering statistics.

If past performance of the Coalition Government is an indication, the percentage commitment of GDP to higher education will continue to fall over the coming years in comparison with our cohort nations. Put simply any possible gain that might accrue to higher education through private sector funding will not compensate for, let alone reverse, the trend of our falling further behind.

The Devil is in the Lack of Detail

Quite apart from the matter of the funds that will be available to universities with the coming of the "Nelsonian Reformation" there are several matters which are sketchily discussed in DEST's Policy Paper Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future yet their effect will be profound.

1. Strengthening [university] research capacity is listed as heading number 6 in the policy paper and after itemising overall research funding, not all university directed, it states, Given the recency of these changes and the size of funding boosts under Backing Australia’s Ability, this package of reforms focuses on evaluating and streamlining current arrangements in research and research training. and goes on to say that DEST will be "evaluating BAA [Backing Australia's Ability] programs" which will run through 2005-06 and will look beyond. The section continues, A major science and innovation mapping exercise is also underway, encompassing Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies, universities and private sector research. How thorough and objective this review will be is open to some question -- it is being handled by Dr. Nelson's department subject to oversight by the departmental secretary and seeking only cursory advice from a reference group.
       The section also puts the universities on notice that DEST is looking toward greater collaboration between universities and publicly funded research agencies. To what degree this will involve amalgamations remains to be seen but there is the prospect of it being a possible mechanism of cost cutting and an even further reduction of the role of basic research in Australia. Almost all fundamental research is carried out within our universities.
    

2. The subject of "workplace reform" constitutes section 8 of the policy paper. We are told, Reflecting the importance placed by the Commonwealth on furthering workplace reform, a new Workplace Productivity Programme will be established to encourage institutions to pursue a broader workplace reform agenda which more effectively utilises the flexibilities available under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. And the universities are informed, Funding under the new programme will be made contingent on universities demonstrating a commitment to workplace reform, through the implementation of flexible working arrangements and a focus on direct relationships with employees and improved productivity and performance. The details of the evidence universities will need to provide to demonstrate a commitment to workplace reform will be settled prior to the implementation of the Programme.
       To make sure the universities get the point, An amendment will be made to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to amplify the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to end protected industrial action, by requiring the AIRC to take particular account of the welfare of particular classes of people, that is, people who are clients of health, community services or education systems, including students.
    

3. Reformation of university systems of governance is referred to in Section 2.2, "Increased Commonwealth course contributions" which says curtly, the Commonwealth will inject a further $404.3 million into the higher education sector by incrementally increasing its contribution per student place by 2.5 per cent from 2005, building to a 7.5 per cent increase by 2007. This increase in funding will be provided once an institution has adhered to the National Governance Protocols (see Attachment A) and has demonstrated compliance with the Commonwealth's workplace relations policies.
       Attachment A is a vaguely worded two page document that strikes at the heart of universities' independence. Universities will need to revise their enabling legislations so as to gain approval by the Commonwealth Minister of Education. Without that approval additional Commonwealth funding will not be made available.
       Paraphrasing a former US President, If you've got their funding in a hammerlock, their hearts and minds will follow.

An inevitable consequence of Dr. Nelson's planned reformation and its proposed implementation will be creating fundamental distortions of Australian universities. Reform of the Australian university system is not only warranted but overdue. Dr. Nelson's neo-conservative approach is simplistic, counterproductive, and damaging to the nation.

The Likely Consequences

1. Australian universities have very small endowments and the income they generate is all but inconsequential. The graph shows just where the money does come from to meet university expenditure. Increasingly greater reliance on fees and charges will drive universities to sacrifice courses which are not popular. Stated crudely if a course or department can't pay its own way it'll have to show damn good reasons why it oughtn't to be removed. So, for example, University of Melbourne professor of mathematics Hyam Rubinstein pointed out in his submission to the "Crossroads" review:
   The Mathematical Sciences are in steep decline in Australia... Some stark figures - of the 16 professors of mathematics and statistics at La Trobe, Monash and Melbourne Universities in 1995, 10 have now left - 5 have gone to prestigious overseas jobs, and the remaining 5 have either moved to administrative positions, retired and one has moved to an academic position at the ANU. This year it is planned to refill 3 of these 10 positions, the remaining have been lost. There are now as many vacant professorships of statistics in the major universities as filled positions.  Concurrently the number of professorships in popular faculties such as business has shown a marked increase while reductions in support for the enabling sciences in general as well as the humanities continue. What use is ancient history anyway to say nothing of Asian languages, let alone ancient Greek or Latin? Why should engineers have a good grounding in physics and mathematics? And maybe it's just as well the Commonwealth Statistician can't find sufficient qualified senior personnel for the ABS.
    

2. The concept of forcing workplace productivity agreements on universities is a demonstration of either monumental misunderstanding of international academe or utter disinterest. Nothing is a more certain invitation for the nation's best an brightest to say, "Love the lifestyle but can't stomach the workplace; I've gotta go." Having a brain drain is one thing but going out of your way to increase the diameter of the plug hole is unconscionable. Canada still has available about 1100 of the 2000 research chairs it has earmarked as one aspect of its program to boost its effort in research and development.
    

3. Coming to what may well become known as the "Infamous Attachment A" Dr. Nelson and the Department of Education, Science and Training appear set upon a path of micromanagement of the universities. So for example paragraph 5 stipulates, There should be a majority of external independent members on the governing body and not include current members of any State or Commonwealth parliament or legislative assembly, while paragraph 6 continues, The institution is to...  [nominate] prospective members of the governing body for appointment by the Governor in Council, the relevant Minister, or the council itself. This responsibility is to be delegated explicitly to a nominations committee of council. The institution is to publicly nominate at least one preferred candidate for any current or imminent vacancy on the governing body to be appointed by the Governor in Council or relevant Minister.
       That the Minister would/could exert considerable influence either directly or indirectly on the Governing Council is obvious. And just to give the screw an extra turn, paragraph 10 reads, The Institution must keep the Commonwealth Minister for Education informed of any significant event affecting the institution or its subsidiaries which may affect its capacity to meet its obligations as set out in its funding agreement with the Commonwealth.
   
   About a year ago the University of Sydney released a four page document entitled Governance: A briefing paper for Senate which is in stark contrast to Attachment A and fiercely supports university independence while stating what it believes is the appropriate exercise of responsibility for running the University of Sydney. Reading the two documents contiguously is remarkably instructive.

DEST's proposed reformation of Australian university structure gives every indication of reducing the system, including the Group of Eight, to moving increasingly toward becoming advanced schools of business, law and applied science and medicine rather than seats of learning and contributors to fundamental knowledge. Instead of usefully differentiating universities it will reduce them to progressively disenfranchising the brilliant academic and knowledge driven student. How this can be seen to be fostering a "knowledge economy" and advancing some of our universities to be comparable with the world's best, a one-time avowed goal of Dr. Nelson, beggars understanding.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web