Transcripts

TRANSCRIPT OF DOORSTOP

RELEASE OF FOURTH HIGHER EDUCATION DISCUSSION PAPER; VARIETIES OF EXCELLENCE: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement.

BRENDAN NELSON:

The discussion paper which I have released today is the fourth in a series of six, designed to encourage a national debate and consideration of our policy choices to put universities on a solid footing for the 21^st century.

Today’s paper, entitled Varieties of Excellence, looks at the issues of diversity, specialisation and regional engagement.

What that means is we want to know whether it is possible for us to have our universities working with each other or, them all competing with one another, and if so, are we able to rationalise the relatively low demand course offerings that are available in some institutions? (inaudible)

There are 20 600 units offered in universities which have only 5 or less students enrolled. 4 200 units have only one student enrolled.

We have one Australian university which offers 167 courses, and 96 of those courses have fewer than five students involved.

So how can we (inaudible) society with a strong financial base under our regional universities and campuses (inaudible) investigation, at the same time as enabling our large universities to legitimately compete with the world’s best.

A part of the (inaudible) relatively small population, in an increasingly competitive world, is to see that we have reasonable course offerings and that universities are then easily able to rationalise the courses and units on offer at universities without any financial penalty at those institutions, so that we develop a critical mass of course offerings and unit offerings in the low demand areas in a number of universities throughout the country.

Why, for example, can’t a student enrol in RMIT or Monash University and do 70, 80 or 90% of their coursework in that institution and then do the remainder by distance with another university that is offering the course with a critical load of student demand?

JOURNALIST:

Can you give me how (inaudible)

Well at the moment we have a number of universities in Australia that have already embarked upon a form of specialisation in some courses and (inaudible) the thought of some institution (inaudible)

If you have a university, for example, that finds it has very high demand for certain courses - teaching, nursing, education and a variety of courses in management and IT, but extremely low demand of the students to take up some of the other courses, why can’t we develop a funding framework which enables one university to work with another institution to see that that course is offered by that other institution, but the funding levels available to each university don’t, under any circumstances, decline.

What we are proposing in the discussion paper are different models for trying to deliver specialisation.

At the moment, for example, we are in a situation where we administer and fund Melbourne University in exactly the same way that we administer and fund the University of Ballarat.

And similarly throughout the country we have different universities that meet different obligations in their communities, with teaching, researching and scholarship. What we are looking at is a policy and funding arrangements which will enable and facilitate more differentiation and specialisation.

Will it bring any particular benefits to regional universities?

The most important thing that we need to do as far as policy is concerned, is to see that our larger universities that have a critical mass for research especially, larger universities such as Melbourne or Sydney University and others, are able to compete with the very best in the world, at the same time that we have a solid funding and policy framework under our regional university

Absolutely nothing can be done, nor should be done, which undermines regional universities. In fact nothing other than strengthening the role of universities in the regions.

At the moment we need to ask ourselves, with $6.4 billion of public funds going to universities this year, are we targeting those resources to where society most wants to see them, where we really need them and especially, not only targeting institutions but meeting economic obligations in our regions that also students with (inaudible) whom we want to see higher participation.

One of our great challenges is to see that we bring more students from rural Australia, and Indigenous students, and students from the poorest socio economic status suburbs in the country, into higher education if they wish to.

At the moment I think it’s fair to say we still have some distance to go.

JOURNALIST:

How will specialisation (inaudible) achieve that?

At the moment we have one university which offers 167 courses, and 96 of those courses have fewer than 5 students enrolled.

It should be clear to anybody, and in particular those Australians whose taxes underwrite what goes on in Australian universities, that is not a recipe for efficiency, educationally or financially.

If we can see that we have sensible course offerings across a variety of courses and units in each institution, but encourage universities to work with one another so that one university is offering some courses which are relatively low demand , and other universities take up others, then I think most people would see that as plain common sense.

What is critically important though, is that we make sure that those units that are fundamental to defining our society in humanities and fine arts and philosophy and languages, that we have those things offered strategically right throughout the country as we would in science, engineering or technology.

Just because something might have a low demand, it does not mean under any circumstances that that alone is a reason for dropping that course or unit

We do have to ask ourselves however, we have 40 predominant tertiary institutions in Australia. There are 22, what are considered to be core course offerings provided in universities.

We need to ask ourselves as a relatively small number (inaudible) whether we can sensibly afford to offer every course, in every subject, in every single university.

At the moment I think the challenge for us is to see that we provide a solid funding framework, that we have a policy framework which encourages the differentiation and specialisation, but indeed means that each student, whatever their circumstances, or wherever they live, can undertake a particular course but not necessarily be in the university with which they are doing their primary qualification.

Does that mean that universities such as Melbourne will get more funding than universities such as Ballarat?

As I have said, absolutely nothing will be done to undermine the role of regional universities nor indeed campuses which are in the regions of the country.

Professor Alan Gilbert, from Melbourne University, is well known for advocating the view that his university will prosper, and is already prospering. And some of the larger universities are already prospering.

But the point which is emphasised in this paper I am releasing today, is that our regional universities face quite different challenges and demands.

In the regions of the country, regional universities are a critically important part of the economic and social development of the regions within which they are based.

The university of New England is 22% of the regional economy there. The university of Tasmania is the second biggest employer in that entire state.

What we need to ask ourselves is where do we really need to focus our public resources? And one of the answers to that in particular is in regional universities and universities serving the regions.

Whilst all of the Vice Chancellors argue for more public funds, and that is (inaudible) I am considering at the moment as you will understand, the issues that affect universities are much broader and much deeper than simply the sources of funding and the level of funding.

JOURNALIST:

(inaudible) Isn’t that another level of bureaucracy?

One of the fundamental objectives of the review is to get the Commonwealth Government out of unnecessary control, regulation and reporting requirements on universities.

There is an enormous amount of bureaucratic duplication. I don’t want to see anything that comes out of the review that bureaucratically does not serve the best interests of Australian higher education.

These are, as are the other discussion papers, they are policy proposals or choices that we can make. I will be interested to see what the attitude and reaction of people in the higher education sector is.

I would prefer – whether we are talking about specialisation, regional engagement, diversity or any other aspect of higher education that we deliver the outcomes without creating more bureaucracy.

If the people in the sector itself tell me that they think we can achieve more differentiation without another (inaudible) bureaucracy, I will be very pleased to hear it.

JOURNALIST:

On the matter of collaboration, we’ve had a situation where we have encouraged competition and deregulation, isn’t there a contradiction we are asking universities in the sector…(inaudible)

I have come into this portfolio with an open mind.

Apart from spending some time at university, my knowledge and understanding of universities was limited when I came into it.

It becomes clear to me that we provide a ‘one size fits all’ funding and policy model for every university in the country.

We have the larger universities - Monash, Melbourne - being administered and funded in exactly the same way as we do the smaller ones - Southern Cross, Ballarat, Northern Territory - and a whole variety of smaller, yet critically important regional institutions.

It also seems that our current arrangements encourage our universities to be all things to all people, with a large suite, or smorgasbord of courses on offer, a lot of units on offer – often with very low demand, while at the same time we have high demand courses where clearly the resources which are available to meet that demand remain inadequate.

I think that competition is obviously important and each of the universities jealously guards their reputation. It is also clear that as a relatively small country in terms of population, that we can’t have every single university trying to offer every single thing to everyone.

It is not a recipe for pursuit of excellence within an institution or indeed as a nation.

When we look at specialisation in the paper, there are two forms of specialisation. One is institution specialisation, and the other programme specialisation.

The tech universities, for example, have suggested to me, that they could be treated as a system, much like say the catholic education commission in the school area.

Could we, for example, as a country consider options for systemic specialisation as much as we do institutional?

I don’t think it is healthy for us when we have clearly limited resources as a relatively small nation in terms of population, to be trying to encourage every university to try and offer every single thing, and to be penalised for not doing so.

At the moment, all of the financial incentives are for Vice Chancellors to offer everything, including VET which ought be in the domain of TAFE.

On the matter of Vice Chancellors, they have come out very strongly saying that they fear a return to the two-tiered system? Do they have something to fear from this discussion paper? Is that the direction to which we are heading?

BRENDAN NELSON:

Barry Jones, for whom I have a very high personal regard, turned his considerable intellect, to what he considered to be the biggest mistake of the previous Labor government.

Writing in the Melbourne Age recently, Barry said that he felt that the biggest mistake made by the government in its thirteen years was to end the binary system.

There are some people in Australia who are arguing a return to that. What I have said to them, as I have said to Barry, is that egg will not be unscrambled.

But while we do not clearly advocate a return to teaching only institutions, and then those that undertake teaching, research and scholarship, what we do want to do, is surely ensure that every research dollar is spent on high quality research.

We need to recognise that some of the smaller universities do outstanding research, but that outstanding research is usually focussed on areas which are not only important to Australia’s economic needs, but also the economic needs of the regions within which they are based.

One of the most important things in this review, there is not enough importance or emphasis placed upon teaching in Australian universities, on the quality of teaching.

If you stop 100 people in the street and ask them what do they expect of universities, especially if they are parents, prospective students, or students, most will tell you that they expect universities to provide an education, and to provide a quality education through teaching to the students who attend them.

One of the things that has amongst many issues we need to address, is that when career progression is to be considered in our institutions, I think more importance needs to be placed on teaching at least as much as research.

JOURNALIST:

The move to support regional universities, it would seem that this would require special funding, perhaps from the Regional Development allocation, outside the ordinary budget (inaudible)

This paper which I am releasing today includes some proposals which would pool some resources which might be available to regional institutions to assist them to provide what I describe as community service obligations, which they face.

One thing which ought to be clear to us as Australians, certainly to anyone with an open mind who comes into this area, is this.

Of our 37 - 38 including Notre Dame – universities, there are a number who are excelling, who are doing exceedingly well. They are generally larger universities, that have been established for a relatively long period of time, and they are generally based in the cities.

There are large group of middle universities that are doing well, that are meeting increasing and difficult challenges.

But there are a group of universities, a number of which are based in the regions of this country, that on any standard need additional assistance.

I suspect that whatever the policy or financing arrangements which finally apply to Australian higher education that Melbourne, Monash, university of Western Australia, Sydney university, Queensland University, QUIT, and a range of universities, will do well.

We have to make sure we have a system which enables each university to excel, while at the same we recognise and fund community service and social obligations, especially in the regions.

I think that by the time we come out of the Review, and for those people who are opposed to certain things that have been considered in the public arena, I simply ask you to step back, and think about what you want Australia to be like in twenty years time, what role you want universities to play in that and ask yourself whether the status quo in terms of policy and financing is going to deliver the aspirations we have for the next generation.

I am convinced that it is not. I am determined to see that there be transformational reform in the sector.

For those who are criticising some proposals, and supporting others, I simply ask that we have the maturity to conduct the debate in an informed way.

When will you be taking your proposals to cabinet?

BRENDAN NELSON:

Our timetable as I’m releasing this paper today – which as I have said is the fourth, we will be releasing a paper on governance and admin of our universities, and there is another paper on the VET, Higher education interface, both to be released in the next two, two and a half weeks.

In addition to that, I responded to the excellent suggestion of the National Tertiary Education Union that we do a monograph of Indigenous education in higher education, which I will also be releasing within three weeks.

The Productivity commission will be providing me with a draft report in September on the way in which universities are funded and administered with the various funding sources, public, private, industry, business and student contributions in other countries. I will be receiving that in September and it is my intention to release that at the earliest opportunity.

I will be having further meetings with my reference group shortly, and I intend to bring together a group of people to consider what we have heard in the public discussions, and the submissions, to occur in October.

It will then be my intention to develop some proposals to take to cabinet. Very much at the end of the year, and we are on schedule for all of the issues.

Whilst I understand that people in the higher education sector repeatedly argue for more public funds, if all that occurred was that we were to put more public funds in to Australian higher education without considering the role of universities, specialisation, recognising and funding regional engagement, without also looking at the internationalisation of higher education, without also looking at attrition rates, private sector investment, the commercialisation of intellectual property and a whole variety of issues which face Australian higher education, we will fail.

And similarly, you cannot look at funding, governance, specialisation, commercialisation, private sector investment or any one of these things in isolation to the other.

(END)

Copyright  |  Disclaimer  |  Privacy Statement