Dr. Kemp's Concept of University Education -  October 1999 and Following

Just two years ago the Hon. David Kemp, Ph.D. (political science) submitted to Federal Cabinet a 14 page document plus attachments entitled, "Proposals For Reform in Higher Education". That paper which forms Appendix 4 of the Senate Committee's report Universities in Crisis with the appellation "Leaked Cabinet Submission" makes interesting and chilling reading, particularly when read in the context of previous statements cited in the footnote.

It opens promisingly though vaguely,

Good education policies will have major benefits in terms of jobs, wealth creation, social inclusion, cultural dynamism and intellectual creativity.

This is followed two sentences later with,

Better educated, better skilled people and the commercialisation of good ideas create new market opportunities, improve our capacity to adapt and change, - drive regional and national enterprise and employment growth and underpin the aspiration to be a 'can do' country. Unfortunately the higher education system as it stands is not going to make the contribution that it could. This is due to the highly regulated nature of the existing system, the problems of which are becoming increasingly apparent... The university system has only weak incentives to be responsive to the actual needs of students and the economy... Universities are currently in a difficult financial position. While government funding is stable, they face rising costs in salaries and investment in new technology. The current regulation of undergraduate fees limits university revenue and perversely prevents students from investing in their own futures.

Higher student:staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation (including practical skills development) are fuelling a perception of declining quality. Essentially we face a choice - shoring up the existing system as it becomes progressively less capable of delivering what government wants, industry needs and the community expects, or putting in place a new system, albeit with controversial elements, which delivers the educational goals we have set, secures our future in the global knowledge economy and underpins lifelong learning.*

Then going through a bit of recent Cabinet history, Dr. Kemp reminded his colleagues,

On 28 June 1999 Cabinet noted (JH99/0222/CAB) specific goals for higher education based on access, choice, quality, responsiveness and a fair sharing of the costs of higher education between individuals and the community. In my submission (JH099/0222) I indicated a preference for deregulating admissions and fees as central elements of a reform of higher education, and in that context Cabinet required that I come back with further relevant information and with options for workplace reform.

It is noteworthy that at no point is the matter of university research, fundamental or otherwise, mentioned. And yet without strong  support for research in the humanities as well as the sciences the quality of university teaching suffers irrevocably. This elemental lack of acceptance by the Government pervades its management of higher education, just as it did John Dawkins'.

Toward the end of Dr. Kemp's Cabinet submission are sections which indicate the Minister's mindset.

Higher education institutions' capacity to respond flexibly and efficiently to emerging student and employer demand is hamstrung by continuing workplace rigidities, by the retention of unwieldy governance structures and by the persistence of a NTEU-dictated pattern bargaining agenda. In the current round the NTEU is seeking to impose conditions which will worsen the rigidities in the sector. In particular, it is demanding salary increases of 19 per cent over 3 years, prohibiting AWAs, reducing staff workloads, limiting operating times and including matters outside the 20 allowable matters...  There is a real risk that some existing institutions, particularly in the regions, will become financially unviable as unsatisfactory pay and conditions arrangements in the sector become locked in until at least 2002-03. In introducing fee deregulation from 2002 the risk is that institutions will pass on the costs of inefficiencies and unfunded salary increases in higher fees if workplace reform is left until after fees have been deregulated.

In my view some salary increases for academic staff are warranted... A quality higher education system requires high calibre staff, and low rewards in academia are driving quality staff to other fields of work or universities overseas...

On quantum, current indexation arrangements already provide sufficient funds to finance at least a one per cent increase in academic and general staff salaries. I propose an injection of funds from January 2000 sufficient to underwrite a further two per cent salary increase in the sector - enough in my judgement to persuade universities to hold firm during what is likely to be extensive industrial unrest.

It appears that a 3% increase in 1999 academic salaries would ensure "A quality higher education system [which] requires high calibre staff," and would be sufficient to overcome the, "low rewards in academia [which] are driving quality staff to other fields of work or universities overseas..." Perhaps Dr. Kemp might take some time to examine academic salaries in the United States, Canada, and the EU to say nothing of the facilities and research funding available and then claim with veracity that a 3% salary increase will keep the guys on the farm.

^*On July 20^th Dr. Kemp wrote the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Chubb, taking issue with a comment he made to the Senate Committee on July 17^th:

"When asked by Senator Kim Carr... whether you believed the universities were in crisis you answered 'Yes'. My concern arises from two sources. One is that the assessment is patently incorrect... Secondly, the AVCC's assertion has a very real potential to damage the standing of Australian universities both domestically and internationally."

In a studied reply Professor Chubb gives details to support his statement to the Committee opening with, "I was asked at the Senate hearings whether the higher education SYSTEM was in crisis - not whether each and every university was in crisis. I answered 'yes' after explaining that it was not a word that I used often but that I couldn't 'easily think of another'..." Prof. Chubb continued, " [On August 13^th]Mr. Gallagher [Michael Gallagher, First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr. Kemp's Department] suggested to the same Senate Committee that Vice-Chancellors who said such things were simply 'looking for an easy way out' and not facing up to their 'management responsibilities.'" He then asks the rhetorical question, "Why would I answer that way?" and proceeds to list the reasons in the course of which he cites statements made by Senator Robert Hill (Lib) who refers to "the funding crisis in higher education and the deteriorating quality of education in this country as a result" and Dr. Kemp, "[I]t is quite clear... the research infrastructure with which [post graduate students] have to deal is in crisis". Professor Chubb also points out that Dr. Kemp quotes Prof. Alan Gilbert (now V-C, University of Melbourne) that the best Australian University might just make it into the world top 50. Gilbert has recently revised his estimate to the top 75 or top 100.

Professor Chubb concludes his rebuttal, "I leave you to draw your conclusions."

As TFW observed in March, it's just a matter of how [and apparently when] you define crisis.