Submission to the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy
By John Brumby MP
Leader of the Victorian Opposition
Funding and relationship to government
Access to higher education must not depend upon personal or parental wealth, nor, as far as possible, upon geographical location, ethnicity, gender or disability.
The university system must remain predominantly publicly funded and publicly accountable, through formal mechanisms.
A voucher-based system of funding is deeply destabilising, and antithetical to the sustained, efficient and rational development of a high-quality tertiary system.
Upfront tuition fees will damage equality of access to our tertiary institutions.
The Commonwealth share of funding for the university system must not fall below current levels if Australia is to retain its competitive economic position. The Government must find the proper balance between the goals of funding the system and not discouraging students from enrolling.
The Victorian Opposition supports the retention of existing university governing bodies, including adequate representation from students, staff, industry and the wider community.
The right of staff and student unions to represent the interests of their members is an essential element of the democratic organisation of universities.
Regional and newer institutions
Regional and newer higher education institutions play a vital role in the economies and cultural life of their areas and in promoting greater social equality and social cohesion.
The recommendations of the Review Committee must not undermine the viability of regional universities or newer institutions.
The Commonwealth Government should give a guarantee of funding for more undergraduate and postgraduate places at regional higher education institutions.
The Victorian Opposition proposes greater co-operation between regional universities, employers and job placement agencies in improving the employment market and skills base of regional communities.
Protecting academic freedom and preserving important disciplines
There is a need to retain a proper balance of disciplines at universities and to protect important departments from closure due to changes in funding arrangements.
The Committee of Review should examine the feasibility of increased co-operation between universities to ensure the future availability to interested students of these threatened disciplines.
Labor believes that it is the right of all academics who show the necessary aptitude and inclination for research to compete on an equal footing for research and publication resources.
Institutions of higher education must retain full autonomy over staff appointments and the content of curriculum in the face on intense commercial and political pressure.
The Committee of Review should address the implications of the recent comment by the Victorian Minister for Tertiary Education and Training that governments should have the right of veto over academic appointments where public funds are involved.
It is not necessary to have to choose between the cultural, intellectual and economic ends of tertiary education.
Graduate employment
The high level of unemployment among university graduates and university students is still a major social concern.
The Committee of Review should examine the potential for more degrees or awards combining general scientific or humanities education with career-specific skills. This will require greater articulation between TAFE and universities.
The Victorian Opposition calls for the inclusion of more careers skill training as part of the general curriculum and for more direct industry placement as one means of reducing graduate unemployment.
Public funding arrangements and policy for our higher educational system are largely the concern of the Commonwealth Government. State Governments, however, have a great stake in the success of their tertiary education sectors. In the following submission I have, where possible, limited my comments to issues pertinent to the responsibilities of state governments, including university accountability to parliament, threats to Victorian university departments, the future of various campuses and institutions in Victoria, and the need to ensure the survival and strength of our regional and newer institutions, which are of vital importance to employment strategies for Victoria. I have also addressed the particular professional and philosophical concerns of academics and students about threats to the future, integrity and intellectual standards of our higher educational system.
The future represents many challenges and opportunities for higher education in Victoria and Australia. Higher education is recognised as a key factor in ensuring economic success. Victoria needs a vibrant higher education sector for its future economic well being as part of the dynamic Asia-Pacific economic region. Information technology and improvements to higher education efficiencies are creating the potential for higher education to be more widely available than ever before. Increased movement between careers, increasing leisure time and the need for constant upgrading of skills due to economic restructuring are creating opportunities for people to return to tertiary education at many stages throughout their life. This creates the possibility for increasing social mobility and equality and for improving the quality of life for many people who would otherwise have missed out on the potentialities provided by higher education. There is a danger, however, that inappropriate funding mechanisms and drastic funding cuts by governments will make our higher education sector more socially elitist and educationally narrow and damage Victoria’s long-term economic prospects.
Damage has already been done as a result of the 1996 Federal Budget. Victoria was the state which was hardest hit by cuts to university funding, losing almost 5000 full-time places over the next three years. Massive increases in HECS charges and the introduction of ill-conceived differential rates of HECS in science and engineering courses has seen an exodus of students from these courses, which are crucial to future Victorian economic prosperity.
The following submission is based on three basic principles:
The Victorian Opposition holds as one of its fundamental tenets in education policy the principle of equitable access for all to a publicly-funded system of education, including higher education, which is of the highest quality. Access to higher education must not depend upon personal or parental wealth nor, as far as possible, upon factors such as geographical location, ethnicity, gender and disability. The Victorian Opposition also has clear policy providing for affirmative action for indigenous Australians. The current scholarship system is an inadequate means of providing assistance and support to the disadvantaged. These principles are based on a view that the role of Government is in part that of ensuring social justice by providing real opportunities for all citizens, including special assistance and support for the socio-economically disadvantaged.
Several things, in terms of the present Review, flow from this starting-point. Central to our position is the view that there should exist a public university system which itself constitutes a benchmark of quality and equity. While there may be room for a private sector in higher education, it is the public, widely accessible system which must be dominant in Government policy priorities. Therefore, any move towards privatisation of the present publicly-funded system, whether direct -- by means of the selling off of institutions or the alteration of their legal status by Act of Parliament -- or indirect -- through the adoption of a system of competitive tendering open to the private sector, and other forms of wholesale exposure of core functions to Competition Policy, for example -- is in the Victorian Opposition’s view completely inappropriate. We acknowledge that universities already have substantial private arms, particularly in their research, marketing and overseas student areas, but these should not be allowed to expand into traditional public areas. The university system must remain predominantly publicly funded and publicly accountable, through formal mechanisms.
Shifts towards voucher funding systems, and increased reliance on private contributions through tuition fees for Australian students, individual funding credits and other similar schemes, are also opposed.
Voucher-based funding is a policy which is ideologically driven by the desire to deregulate and privatise, and is usually associated with a shift towards greater reliance on private sources of funding through fees. In higher education this policy is to our knowledge totally untried anywhere in the world. There are good reasons for this. Universities are large, complex, expensive pieces of public infrastructure. Their human and material resources take time to develop and are necessarily costly to maintain. A voucher-based system is, on the other hand, deeply destabilising, and in that way antithetical to the sustained, efficient and rational development of a high-quality system. The resulting constant and capricious change in student demand is likely to cause fluctuations in enrolments which undermine the stability of each institution, and therefore of the system as a whole.
A system based on upfront tuition fees is open to many of the same criticisms from the point of view of equity and efficiency. While the HECS system introduced by Labor in 1989 had no discernible effect on access for disadvantaged groups to university study, it is clear that it is the nature of this scheme as an income-contingent, deferred-payment, which led to this result. Upfront fees, by contrast, even at modest levels, constitute barriers to participation. The upfront charge of $250 pa. introduced by Labor in 1987 was abandoned two years later in favour of HECS for this reason. Particularly affected by the upfront HECS charge were women and mature-aged students. In the postgraduate arena, it is also clear that women in particular are under-represented in courses where full upfront fees are charged. This situation requires careful monitoring, and the introduction of measures to redress the disadvantage suffered by certain groups in a commercial environment. It illustrates the importance of retaining a strong predominance for publicly-funded provision at all levels.
The State Opposition opposes the decision by the Federal Coalition Government to allow universities to charge upfront tuition fees to Australian students over the Commonwealth-funded quota from 1997. This position is based in part on the considerations of equity outlined above, but is also founded on the view that this policy move will precipitate a more general shift towards a fees-based approach to funding, simply because the pressure to deregulate further will be difficult to contain in the new partially deregulated environment thus created. The major attraction from upfront fees and other revenue raising schemes is directly attributable to the rapid cut in university operating grants imposed on universities in the 1996-97 Federal Budget.
While we do not believe that there is a large potential domestic market for full-fee places in general terms -- this view is supported by reference to the comparatively poor performance of private fee-paying institutions such as Bond University -- we are concerned that the new environment will encourage some universities to seek to bend the rules in order to maximise their potential in this commercial area. The University of Melbourne has announced that it will capitalise on its prestige by "selling" its imprimatur -- a Melbourne degree -- to students who have undertaken most of their study elsewhere, by means of credit transfer arrangements and high fees. These developments illustrate the way in which institutions will be able to manipulate and circumvent existing rules and regulations in a largely deregulated area of activity. The long-term implications for the integrity of the public system are extremely worrying.
Higher education, like other types of education, produces benefits both to individuals and to society as a whole. The private goods which it brings include higher income-earning capacity and better, richer quality of personal life. The public benefits, often forgotten by conservative policy-makers, are even greater. They include the economic outcomes for Australia of a better-educated, more skilled and adaptable workforce and the political, social and cultural benefits which accompany the existence of a well-informed, intellectually sophisticated citizenry. Therefore there are strong arguments for a substantial public role in the funding and co-ordination of higher education.
Australia currently ranks around average, in OECD terms, as a public spender on higher education. The increases in charges imposed on students in the 1996 Federal Budget through HECS, however, mean that Australia is now one of the most expensive countries in the world in which to study in higher education, from the point of view of students. This has led in 1997 to a substantial drop in applications for university entry, from both school-leavers and mature-aged students. The Commonwealth share of funding for the university system must not fall below current levels if Australia is to retain its competitive position in the international sphere. The new HECS charges, on the other hand, must urgently be reduced if significant numbers of potential students are not to be deterred from entering higher education. The Government must find the proper balance between the goals of funding the system and not discouraging students from enrolling.
While governments of various persuasions may seek to increase private and corporate support for higher education, this must be achieved within a strong policy framework which limits, directs and regulates this private funding and assures that, as well as maintaining the Commonwealth share of funding, the fundamental integrity of the publicly-funded system remains intact. This cannot be achieved by wholesale deregulation and privatisation. A central role for the Commonwealth in funding, planning and co-ordinating the system must remain. Otherwise the economic, social and educational goals of the system, including the pursuit of public benefit, as well as private good, cannot be achieved.
A corollary to the arguments outlined in the previous section is the principle of full, transparent public accountability for the university sector. The best way to ensure that the valuable resources tied up in our universities are being used efficiently, equitably and appropriately is to maintain a strong role for Government in their funding. Accountability is achieved not only by relating the funding received to performance, but by developing a co-operative and long-standing partnership between institutions and Government, based on this shared responsibility.
The Government must not, however, use its funding role as a means of curbing the academic freedom of universities.
Public reporting, through legally mandatory annual reports and financial reporting requirements overseen by State Auditors General, are essential aspects of this process.
The maintenance of a public system of higher education, where universities are established by Act of Parliament (of whatever level), and required by statute to report formally on their activities to the Government of the day, is the most appropriate, thorough and efficient basis for public accountability.
There has been much attention in recent years to the matter of the appropriate size of university governing bodies. Most, including those in Victoria, have been streamlined and their size reduced. Higher education institutions must be free to determine the size of their governing bodies, but these bodies must be large enough to provide appropriate representation to the major stakeholders in the institutions themselves and the community in general, as currently provided in many Acts establishing universities. These bodies should continue to involve students, staff and graduates, and also representatives from industry, various levels of government and professional and community organisations.
Recently, pressures from both within and without institutions have tended to favour "top-down" management styles and structures. The drive for greater "efficiency", and also commercial imperatives, have provided the impetus for this trend. While the former is desirable and the latter a fact of life, it is important that universities are not pushed so far in this direction that they lose sight of the need for participative and consultative approaches to decision-making.
The right of staff and student unions to represent the interests of their members is an essential element of the democratic organisation of universities. The so-called "voluntary student unionism" legislation enacted by the Victorian Government is a significant infringement upon the rights of students and should be repealed.
The needs of communities and industry in regional Australia for higher education are often forgotten. In Victoria there are universities or branch campuses of universities in regional centres including Warrnambool, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Wodonga and the La Trobe Valley, as well as campuses located in the outer-suburban rim of Melbourne.
Regional institutions of higher education play a vital role in local economies, creating employment, enabling young Australians to stay in regional areas and adding to the creative life of their communities. They are often the largest employers in regional centres with multiplier effects on local employment in goods and services. The impact of closure of campuses on regional communities would be disastrous.
Typically, these campuses and institutions are relatively small, newer and resource-poor. Their size and resource base renders them especially vulnerable in an atmosphere of open and deregulated competition for funds, whether through competitive tendering or through student fees, or a combination of both these mechanisms. In general, regional institutions have fared poorly in competition with the larger metropolitan universities in attracting fee-paying overseas students, although some have been successful in developing niche markets in particular course areas. They are usually less successful too, in the postgraduate fee-paying market; some have moved into the arena of distance education with greater success.
There is reason to believe, therefore, that these institutions and campuses are under threat from proposals to deregulate the higher education system on a wholesale basis, or to move to a more competitive regime. Yet, as stated above, their continued viability is crucial to the development of regional areas, and to the provision of opportunities for country people. While Open Learning and other forms of distance education, and the use of modern communications technology, are extremely useful in overcoming isolation and broadening opportunities, there remains a crucial role for on-campus provision and for the siting of higher education teaching and research resources outside Metropolitan Melbourne and other Australian capital cities.
The Review Committee must accord high priority to the vital role of regional institutions and ensure that its recommendations do not potentially undermine the viability of regional higher education institutions.
Regional institutions have an important role to play in their local employment markets. Labor advocates greater co-operation between regional institutions, local government, employers and job placement agencies in lowering the unemployment rates and enhancing the skill base of regional areas.
Labor believes that the Commonwealth Government should give a guarantee of funding for more undergraduate and postgraduate places at regional universities.
The market for higher education will make the newer campuses more vulnerable.
These institutions play an important part in the life of their local communities, many of which have a wider socio-economic mixture than the established universities.
These institutions are particularly vulnerable to competition policy in education. Newer universities must be protected from the full effect of competition policy, as they require long lead times to establish excellence in teaching and research. They find it difficult to compete for students with more established and prestigious universities. This lack of demand is often unrelated to the excellence in particular research and teaching fields relevant to their geographical area and the particular needs of their local communities.
The committee must also take into consideration the role that these institutions play in providing a source of education in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Newer institutions generally have a high percentage of students from non-English speaking backgrounds and many students are the first from their family to have attended university. The fact that these institutions exist in local areas is a very real encouragement for students to consider higher education. Newer institutions have an important role in promoting greater social equality and social cohesion.
Universities have always been to some extent vocationally-oriented institutions. But alongside directly vocational functions, universities have also traditionally pursued pure research and teaching in the sciences and humanities. There needs to be a proper balance between the vocational and non-vocational aspects of university life. There is, however, concern among many academics that the recent emphasis placed on vocational education and increased pressures placed on academic staff may have upset this balance. These concerns have been publicly voiced by the Chair of this Review.
There are a number of main elements of this problem:
Many believe recent changes have damaged the long-term teaching quality and the international standing of our universities.
These circumstances have produced a feeling of disquiet among academics and students. Many academics believe that economic pressures are killing the ideal of university life which motivated them to seek their careers there -- time to research and to build intellectual relationships with students who themselves had a love of learning. Instead, many academics find themselves overwhelmed by the pressures of time, student numbers and the need to meet quantitative rather than qualitative measurement of their research work. Many students miss out on adequate supervision and feel the economic pressure to get through university as quickly and cheaply as possible.
If there is a crisis which needs to be addressed it is how to balance the demands of equity and quality, and practical career-based learning with "knowledge for its own sake".
Labor contends that universities can solve this problem by acting co-operatively to pool and share schools and departments threatened with closure due to low numbers.
Another way of easing the squeeze on humanities and science courses is for greater articulation between the vocational education and training sector and Universities.
There are various models for this which can be considered. For instance, courses can be organised so that in the first two years the student studies general knowledge-based subjects and then specialises for the last one or two years in a purely academic or more vocational course at university or an allied TAFE institute. Under such a scheme, for instance, a student at a university could study a combined course in economics and tourism, political science and public relations, or history and police studies, with the tourism, public relations or police studies courses supplied by a the university, a TAFE institute or another university.
The benefits to students, academics and employers are obvious -- students receive a balance of "pure knowledge" and "career knowledge", employers can choose from graduates who can combine general analytical, presentational and problem-solving skills with job-specific skills, and university departments currently being squeezed for students will have this pressure relieved.
It is not necessary to have to choose between the cultural and the economic ends of tertiary education.
The high level of unemployment among university graduates and university students is still a major social concern, although the level for graduates is lower than for non-graduates. This represents not only a source of frustration and financial hardship but a waste of potential for our society and economy.
There has been a steady trend downwards in the employment rate of graduates over the past decade:
Percentage of full-time job seekers finding work within four months of graduation
| Discipline | 1986 | 1989 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 |
| Architecture | 95.7 | 95.1 | 63.6 | 65.7 | 78.4 | 79.8 |
| Humanities | 83.3 | 81.5 | 57.8 | 55.9 | 60.0 | 65.1 |
| Psychology | 82.1 | 85.0 | 63.7 | 58.0 | 54.1 | 64.5 |
| Business | 94.4 | 95.1 | 72.6 | 77.5 | 78.0 | 80.5 |
| Education | 89.7 | 87.5 | 58.5 | 63.3 | 63.1 | 74.6 |
| Nursing | 97.7 | 97.8 | 71.3 | 73.3 | 79.6 | 87.4 |
| Medicine | 99.7 | 100 | 99.7 | 99.5 | 99.9 | 99.6 |
| Law | 96.3 | 96.6 | 96.3 | 91.6 | 91.6 | 91.0 |
| Mathematics | 89.6 | 87.2 | 60.3 | 59.7 | 59.3 | 64.7 |
Source Graduate Careers Council of Australia
The latest available figures -- from 1995 -- show that 9.1 per cent of tertiary graduates seeking work were unable to find work four months after completing their qualifications.
The unemployment rate for those with postgraduate qualifications has also deteriorated, doubling over the past decade. The situation was worse for women than for men and for those with postgraduate diplomas and certificates compared with masters and doctoral degrees.
The Victorian Opposition believes that one important way that the problem of graduate unemployment can be addressed is through changes to the structure of university courses (as already outlined), however, there are reforms to curriculum and university career services which could improve the situation further. These include:
Victoria University has placed strong emphasis on industry placement for its students in all discipline areas, and its initiative may well provide a framework for other universities to follow.