Opinion - 25 January 2002

 

Brendan Nelson Promises He'll be a New Broom. The Quality of the Sweep Remains to be Defined.

When Dr. David Kemp departed from the ministry responsible for education to tend other pastures, an almost audible sigh of relief was heard from the nation's higher education sector (he's now Minister for the Environment and Heritage). Mind you the same scenario took place when Amanda Vanstone moved over to the Attorney Generalship. Now it's the general practitioner turned parliamentarian who is warming the seat.

So far Dr. Nelson has had nothing to say regarding the science part of his portfolio; presumably that's being left to Peter McGauran who is specifically responsible for science. [It should be noted that Mr. McGauran has yet to give any media releases or speeches with respect to his ministerial responsibility and his one interview has been a minute segment on bushfire research.]

Early this week Dr. Nelson gave a "Doorstop Interview" in which he sketchily set out what his approach to higher education reform will be. For example according to Tom Allard's Sydney Morning Herald article of January 22nd he opined that inflexible funding was hampering the development of a "world-class" university along the lines of Harvard. If nothing else that observation leaves a wide scope for interpretation -- "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." Had Alice gone on to read Dr. Nelson's opinion piece in the January 25th issue of the Sydney Morning Herald she might have been even stronger in her assessment.

Dr. Nelson also enjoined universities to become more specialised in specific fields, and according to Allard went on to emphasise that he would not accept a "culture of mediocrity" which was immediately followed by "we have to recognise that not all young people feel or are equipped to complete year 12, or indeed want to."  This approach takes no account of the fact that the lower the level of education of individuals, the more restricted they are in their vocational choices and that there is a significant tendency of the young to seek out instant gratification if it's offered, not infrequently to their detriment later in life. A good part of parents' job description is to take responsibility in this regard. Dr. Nelson demonstrates shallow thinking in expressing his viewpoint and later defending it. It doesn't bode well for the minister's future decisions and recommendations to cabinet.

Both the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald have January 24th editorial's with regard to the minister's comments which make interesting reading. On the whole they give him a qualified pass with very much a wait and see approach. However, there are enough indications from what is in Dr. Nelson's "Doorstop Interview" to give our universities and the nation pause. And it oughtn't to be forgotten that the Treasurer has made much of his intention to keep a tight reign on ministers' spending proposals for the coming financial year.

Below are some excepts from Dr. Nelson's "doorstop"

The Commonwealth Government has also made available over the last 6 years, almost $2 billion more for Australian Universities. There are at least 35,000 more places for undergraduates in Australian Universities today than there were 5 and a half years ago.

But the minister neglected to mention that during that time compared to the OECD average in 1996-97 the gross expenditure on research and development based on GDP was 83%. By 2001-02 it has dropped to 67% of the OECD average, and that includes the additional money from Backing Australia's Ability. Yes, "gross expenditure" includes private sector investment, and yes the drop in private sector investment coincided with the marked reduction in the tax benefit for such investment.  Perhaps even more telling, the Government's expenditure on higher education shrank from 0.74% of GDP in 1996-97 to 0.57% in 2001-02 while student staff ratios climbed from 14.5 to 18.4. Dr. Nelson will very soon lose credibility if this sort of glib incomplete truth continues. Perhaps it's acceptable conduct so far as his Cabinet superiors are concerned but it is unsettling when perpetrated by a doctor of medicine and former Federal President of the Australian Medical Association. He continued in his doorstop interview;

Universities are autonomous, they are independent institutions, they manage their own affairs and a number of institutions this year have chosen to reduce the number of places that they are offering at the same time that the number of students who are applying to University have increased. We also ought to remind ourselves as Australians that, 10 years ago there were 100,000 students in this country who had applied for a place at University who were not successful. Last year it was less than 20,000 and of those who were not offered a place in the first round of offers, more than half were successful in the second round...

For the Federal Government, who by virtue of its grip on universities' budgets maintains a virtual stranglehold on them, to state through the Minister of Education that universities are "autonomous, they are independent institutions" beggars belief. He also cites the large drop in unsuccessful applications for university places but neglects the 27% increase in student to staff ratio. And yet the minister continued,

The most important thing that we need to do as a nation is to see that every Australian, every young Australian especially, is able to find and achieve his or her own potential – whatever that is.

With the increasing decay of our university system that would seem less and less likely to be attainable for not only will the best of our creative minds be ill catered for, they will leave for better environments. Two additional matters brought up by Dr. Nelson are significant:

I have said to the Vice-Chancellors of Australian Universities and others who have a deep interest in and commitment to Universities that the status quo will be difficult to sustain if we want Australian Universities to maintain their standards of excellence and also to serve the economic and social expectations of the Australian community. I will be spending much of this year in consultation with the higher education sector, the business community and those Australians whose taxes underwrite the $6.15billion that will go to Universities this year to develop a reform package which will take Australian Universities well into the 21st Century. [And] the Universities themselves, if they choose to, can fund more places and make them available. I notice the University of Melbourne is offering in total over $16 million worth of scholarships to the elite of the elite students, as it has every right to do so. But equally it and other institutions, if they chose to could fund and offer more places and use a variety of mechanisms to do so.

Is he really scolding the universities for offering incentives to their most promising enrolees, potentially the nation's most creative minds who could if suitably nurtured provide the growth for a 21st century economy Australia must develop? In addition the minister has indicated that there will be little additional funding for the university sector for the coming financial year. We have been told that Dr. Nelson has spent much of the past six weeks reading through briefing papers in order to acquaint himself with his portfolios but has he gone beyond those documents to not only read the Senate committee's report, Universities in Crisis but also the many cogent submissions made to that committee? If he has, how could he seriously utter a phrase like, "the status quo will be difficult to sustain if we want Australian Universities to maintain their standards of excellence and also to serve the economic and social expectations of the Australian community," when Melbourne University's Vice-Chancellor, Alan Gilbert, has stated the top Australian Universities wouldn't make it into the world's top 75-100, and with the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University and Chairman of the Group of Eight, Gavin Brown publicly quoting him.
    It's all very well for the minister to refer to the $6.15 billion his government will allocate to the 38 public universities, but yet again Australia's position relative to the higher educational funding by our cohort nations is assiduously ignored. Just how he foresees developing even a single world class research university along the lines of Harvard is a question that he is yet to address. Perhaps, he might like to consult Neil Rudenstine, he's only seven months retired from his job as Harvard's President and could be useful if he is seeking impartial advice. And Princeton's Harold Shapiro might also be available. Either of them ought to have a pretty good idea of just what it really takes to develop and maintain a top class research university.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web