Initial reservations about West - Mark II
The West Committee's Report on Higher Education is such an important document that I am offering some very preliminary comments gleaned from the executive summary and the recommendations in the very short time available before this issue of the ANU Reporter went to press. Last November, I expressed my disappointment that many of the major players discussed and dismissed the Committee's discussion paper in less than 24 hours. I sincerely hope that this does not occur with the final report. It deserves a much more thoughtful reaction than that. I am aware that I may be seen as not heeding my own advice: I emphasise that I am signalling some initial reactions, which will need to be more thoroughly considered after digesting the report in full. It is most welcome that the report clearly articulates the concerns which most of us in the higher education sector have held for a number of years now - indeed it has some excellent warning lights. However, my first brief exposure to it leaves me with reservations about some of the proposed policy solutions. West, Mark II, is a document which benefits from the additional time and feedback which the committee has received in finalising its task. Its proposed staged transitions from the current supply-oriented funding model to a student demand-driven model are helpful. It now has more to say about the vital role of universities in research and how research is adequately and effectively funded. The report addresses many of the earlier criticisms of student-centred funding; for example, equity concerns and the impact on regional universities. It remains to be seen whether the critics will be mollified. The committee recognises that universities need to upgrade their infrastructure if they are to be internationally competitive. However, its recommendations that the necessary funding be provided from a government-led "process for rationalising the ownership and control of assets used by universities" and a Government loan fund give me early concern. I look forward to learning more about the detail. The Committee's wish to promote research mobility is welcome. Its Stage 1 proposal to allocate research training places to institutions on the basis of a research training index will need further examination. The index, which is intended to be a measure of the research and research training performance of institutions, will only serve the national interest if it is constructed to take account of the capacity of institutions to provide the necessary infrastructure and critical mass to properly train research students. The research proposals are bound to be controversial. I confess that I need more time to fully think through the implications. Many people will be uncomfortable with attempts to assess returns from fundamental research and to set priorities. However, it is difficult to dispute the committee's argument that funding shortfalls mean that an implicit priority setting process between programs already exists. The issue may really be one of whether that process should be made explicit and transparent. If the notion of priority setting based on anticipated returns were to go beyond the program level, there are grounds for real concern. However, there is no indication that this is intended. The recommendation that infrastructure costs should be attached to grants is a positive one in itself. However, it is at the expense of the existing research infrastructure block grants. It will only make sense if the Research Quantum becomes responsive to research quality. I have by now written many times pointing out that the Research Quantum, despite being an inadequate proportion of the operating grant, is still the major government allocation for higher education research. Focusing on the ARC and other competitive grants and the research infrastructure program captures only part of the total picture. The Committee has at least recommended that the Government review the size and basis for allocating the Research Quantum in the light of its recommendations on the funding of undergraduate and postgraduate tuition. We will be encouraging that review to take account of measures of research quality, in addition to volume of output. If this is not done, there is every prospect of the balance of higher education research effort moving almost entirely towards short term strategic research and away from the vital long term fundamental research which universities alone have undertaken in this country. And the most important message in the report? It is indubitably that "government decisions on the level of resources to be provided for higher education should be made on the basis that the risks associated with underinvestment in higher education are greater than those of overinvestment". Deane Terrell