Perhaps it's not the sort of question a Babbitt might ask a Bromide, "Do you think the Minister for Education, Science and Training has on the wall in front of his desk a large photograph of the Prime Minister, hand raised, finger waggling, with the admonishing caption, 'Never admit that the Australian university system is in crisis!'"

Having watched Dr. Nelson's performance over the past months and before that, his predecessor, Dr. Kemp, as Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, it would seem to be a reasonable question.

You might say that the fuss got heavy when the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Ian Chubb, had a quick exchange with Senator Carr (Labor, Victoria) on July 17, 2001. But let's start at the end. Last Thursday, Dr. Nelson put out a media release that began,

Tomorrow is the final day for public submissions in response to the seven discussion papers I have issued to inform the Review of Higher Education. Australia's universities are not in crisis, but they do require reform if we are to provide the best educational, social and economic outcomes for the nation.

Not the first time the Minister brought crisis into the discussion. Speaking to the National Press Club on May 8^th this year:

[H]igher education disengages itself from where the average everyday Australian is, when it speaks about a crisis. The people whose hard work funds the $6.1 billion of public funds going into universities this year, it's frequently removed from low incomes, from small business people working their tails off to survive, who are living in parts of Australia where entire industries have changed, where in the process of change many people have found themselves displaced from work and retraining, partly due to your hard work, I might add, for new careers. If you want to talk about a crisis, I would suggest that for a start, where only a quarter of Aboriginal Australians in some parts of Arnhem Land attend school, I put that in the crisis category. When only 16 of 378 Aboriginal kids outside Darwin or Alice Springs can pass a basic year 3 reading test, I put that in the crisis category.

He had spoken to the Australian Academy of Science the week before scolding them and implying that they were unfeeling if not callous:

[To] those of you who argue from the higher education sector that there is a crisis, can I just say to you, please desist at that kind of language... If you want to see a crisis, have a look at school attendance by Aboriginal Australians in Arnhem Land: 25-54%. If you want to see a crisis in education, consider that only 16 of 378 Aboriginal children outside of Darwin and Alice Springs can pass a basic year 3 reading test.

By this time if you were wondering who in the Minister's department is feeding him these sorts of arguments you weren't alone. There was a palpable odor of a set agenda for the Higher Education Review which included, "whatever else transpires, you are not getting any increase in resources from this Government."

But to return to that 17^th of July last year in Sydney:

That was too much for Dr. Kemp who roundly criticised Professor Chubb in a letter sent to him with copies to "other Vice-Chancellors" on July 20^th. The full exchange is available online

I am writing to express my serious concern at the newly announced position of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee that the Australian universities are in crisis.

My concern arises from two sources. One is that the assessment is patently incorrect, devaluing the excellent performance of the great majority of institutions in the sector. Secondly, the AVCC's assertion has a very real potential to damage the standing of Australian universities both domestically and internationally.

I am bound to call your attention to several important facts... revenues of the sector from all sources... are some $1.2 billion higher than in 1995... Australia's combined public and private investment in tertiary education is 1.59% of GDP, higher than the OECD average of 1.33% and higher than the in the United Kingdom or Germany.

Secondly... you made the claim of a "precipitous" decline in public funding for higher education since 1996. This is simply false. Payments... have remained stable in real terms over 1996-2001.

Dr. Kemp's letter goes on to point out that course questionnaires show student satisfaction with the university experience is at 91%, that student/staff ratios are still below the OECD average, that Australian university places are highly attractive to overseas students and that Backing Australia's Ability will inject $1.47 billion into the universities. Dr. Kemp concludes,

In short these facts portray a university sector that is performing at a high level in a context of expanding opportunities. We must all work to ensure that the quality of the sector continues to be recognised. Australian universities are entitled to have their achievements properly acknowledged, and this will be aided by avoiding misleading and damaging characterisations of the sector.

Professor Chubb, not one to allow a series of obfuscations to go unchallenged, replied by submitting an addendum to his testimony to the Senate committee.

IS THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN CRISIS: A BIT OF PERSPECTIVE

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'. Dr. Kemp... expressed his irritation and copied the letter to all my colleagues. Mr. Gallagher [First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs] 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.

Monday, 13 August 2001 SENATE--References EWRSBE 1351 Senator CARR--We are talking here about the vice-chancellors.  At Sydney, there were five vice-chancellors putting this position, representing some of the most prestigious institutions in this country. They are hardly what you would call a disaffected group or disaffected individuals. These are not your normal run-of-the-mill agitators--heaven help us. Mr Gallagher--They are making up for lost time, by the looks of it. Senator CARR--But is it not, therefore, a concern to the department that we should have such a widespread collection of opinion coming to us saying that the system is in deep crisis? Mr Gallagher--I put it back to you again that the people who are advocating that position to you are possibly looking for an easy way out rather than fronting up to their management responsibilities. Note: Currently Mr Gallagher is listed in the "Executive Top Structure" of the Department of Education, Science and Training as "Mike Gallagher, Group Manager, International"

 Professor Chubb then went on to quote Senator Robert Hill (now Minister for Defence and Leader of the Government in the Senate) who one year before the Coalition assumed government spoke of the funding crisis in higher education and the deteriorating quality of education in this country. [A]s a result... over the period of this Labor government, public funding has in fact decreased by about 15%... the quality of particularly undergraduate first degrees is deteriorating... the government has not faced up to its responsibilities... it is its policies that have resulted in this crisis in higher education. (Senate Hansard, 23/05/95).

Six months later Dr. Kemp joined in. Whatever the government's rhetorical commitment to a higher education system of high quality, excellence... it is quite clear is not the reality at all... the research infrastructure with which they [postgraduate research students] have to deal is in crisis. Then in opposition, Dr. Kemp was content to quote the Now Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University that perhaps our best university scrapes into the first 50, perhaps, perhaps not... dare we risk negotiating the 21^st century without even a place at the table of world-class intellectual and cultural discourse. (House Hansard, 20/09/95)

Professor Chubb included the following table in his "post Kemp letter" submission to the Senate committee.

Apparently once in government the jaundiced Coalition assessment was cast aside for the clear vision of a sunny upland. Over the past six-and-a-half years the Coalition could hardly be accused of squandering federal funds on the higher education sector. But when the public aren't looking and listening maybe the story is... a bit different. In October 1999 Dr. Kemp tabled a Cabinet submission which made the following observations:

The government has committed itself to education being a major theme of its second term. Good education policies will have major benefits in terms of jobs, wealth creation, social inclusion, cultural dynamism and intellectual creativity. In particular, the generation and transmission of new knowledge through our universities expands the capacities of our economic, social and cultural institutions.

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. Already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk. The current enterprise bargaining round is not giving universities more staffing flexibility. This will restrict the capacity of universities to use their staff effectively, further weakening the performance of Australian higher education.


The scale of these problems means that higher education will remain a contentious issue for the government through this term. 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.

You might be forgiven for getting the impression that Dr. Kemp, when addressing Cabinet, was conveying a view that higher education was a worthwhile investment by the nation's government and serious remedial action should be undertaken immediately.

Professor Chubb in his rebuttal to Dr. Kemp's letter went on to list thirteen points which led him to base the judgment he made when replying to Senator Carr fourteen months ago. The document referred to above gives the list in full; here are just two of the points:

• alarming and recent decline in the number of academic staff in key areas: chemistry: down 23% since 1995; physics down 29% since 1994; mathematics down 24% between 1995 and 1999 (to be published), and the ANU V-C's final point:

• analysis of OECD research and development expenditure shows the gap between Australia and the average of OECD countries would require about $13.5 billion over five years to get us to the average (Group of Eight) [emphases ours].
   

Mr Gallagher--I put it back to you again that the people who are advocating that position to you [of the university system being in crisis] are possibly looking for an easy way out rather than fronting up to their management responsibilities.

Dr. Nelson -- [To] those of you who argue from the higher education sector that there is a crisis, can I just say to you, please desist at that kind of language.