![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/universities-adapting.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Unresolved problems of Commonwealth support for universities came to a head in 1952, when the funding recommended by the 1950\u00a0Mills Committee<\/a>\u00a0expired. Despite his oft-expressed affection for Australian universities, Robert Menzies\u2019 refusal to appoint a standing committee to manage university funding or new inquiry left future Commonwealth support and funding uncertain. The government\u2019s practice of delaying the passage of the States Grants (Universities) Act until just in time for the following year tested universities\u2019 nerve.<\/p>\n Coupled with this uncertainty was the problem of inflation, which had soared after the previous Labor government\u2019s wage controls were lifted. The Commonwealth allocations so precisely calibrated in the middle of 1950 were increasingly inadequate. By 1952, the\u00a0Australian Vice-Chancellors\u2019 Committee<\/a>\u00a0(AVCC, predecessor of Universities Australia) estimated inflation had reduced the effective Commonwealth allocation by \u201cup to 40%\u201d.<\/p>\n In October 1951 universities used the opportunity of the ceremony installing the first ANU chancellor,\u00a0Stanley Melbourne Bruce<\/a>, to send a deputation to the prime minister to urge him to initiate a \u201cco-ordinated plan of development\u201d. Menzies was unavailable. The visiting vice-chancellors had to be content with\u00a0Paul Hasluck<\/a>, minister for territories, as the prime minister\u2019s representative.<\/p>\n The UWA vice-chancellor,\u00a0Sir George Currie<\/a>, later confessed to other universities that he \u201cwas not optimistic regarding the result\u201d. Hasluck indicated the Commonwealth had limited interest in establishing a new committee that might bind it to increasing funding.<\/p>\n Their discreet appeals having failed, universities were compelled to adopt a more public stance. This meant a degree of co-ordinated public action universities had only infrequently practised. The University of Sydney appointed communications professionals to develop the public case.<\/p>\n They were not alone, though, in public advocacy. During a speech on the responsibility of science in the modern world,\u00a0Ian Clunies Ross<\/a>, head of the CSIRO and former Sydney professor, \u201cturned an elegant celebration on the traditional role of the university into an urgent appeal for help\u201d.<\/p>\n Facing a pressing funding shortfall, universities took the unprecedented step of preparing a booklet,\u00a0A Crisis in the Finances and Development of the Australian Universities<\/a>. Signed by vice-chancellors, it set out a reasoned case on university finances.<\/p>\n The publication shed the previous restraint of the AVCC\u2019s public statements and presented the situation facing universities as a \u201ccrisis\u201d. The combination of the loss of Commonwealth funding and rising inflation meant universities were worse off in real terms than they had been in 1939. The booklet presented concerns to the public, and made the case that the public should value universities\u2019 contribution:<\/p>\n Universities are destined to play an increasingly important role in Australian development. Their future is a matter of grave concern to you and to every other member of the community. Yet there is an alarming degree of public apathy regarding their affairs. While they are accepted as an integral part of our educational system, there is little public appreciation of the wide nature of their responsibilities to the community.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The universities argued their role had expanded in the years after the second world war and they now performed many functions of vital national significance. Their tasks of transmitting knowledge to students, along with the training of professionals with technical expertise, such as \u201carchitects, engineers, scientists, doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, economists\u201d, were now undertaken to meet national priorities.<\/p>\n Another role was in Commonwealth-supported research. Universities distinguished their contribution from the CSIRO\u2019s mission-oriented investigation of specified problems. Universities had the freedom to advance knowledge and make discoveries where the end result was unknown. Moreover, they were the primary source of \u201cspecialist training in professions and science\u201d essential for the national research enterprise.<\/p>\n All these benefits crossed state boundaries and had wide public utility. Research, for example, was not the private work of individuals, but rather provided a \u201cthreefold advantage\u201d: in \u201cadvancing knowledge\u201d, training research workers for government and industrial employment, and \u201cindirectly maintaining the interest and vigour of the staff with a benefit to teaching standards\u201d. Acknowledging that research did not always produce immediate economic benefits, they argued that their research training provided an essential prerequisite for growth of the economy.<\/p>\n Two thousand copies of the Crisis booklet were distributed to politicians, university governing bodies, professors and others \u201cinterested in increasing government support\u201d. A media statement was drafted emphasising the problem of inflation. Journalists were encouraged to quote from the booklet as the official position of Australian universities.<\/p>\n In the wake of the publication of the booklet, Menzies reiterated his support for Australian universities. More promisingly, he indicated broad support for an immediate 20% increase in \u201csecond level\u201d Commonwealth assistance, which benefited the smaller universities, and the establishment of a committee to respond to immediate needs and prepare a long-term plan for university development.<\/p>\n Yet by the following February the process had slowed. Universities became increasingly frustrated.<\/p>\n The 1953 Premiers\u2019 Conference was scheduled for the day after the universities met, and the vice-chancellors telegraphed the Secretary of the Prime Minister\u2019s Department, Allen Brown: \u201cwould it be possible to obtain the Prime Minister\u2019s views on additional assistance for universities in current year\u201d. Brown telephoned in reply that the Premiers\u2019 Conference would be dealing with \u201cweighty problems\u201d and unfortunately would not have time to consider universities\u2019 appeal.<\/p>\n The plight of universities was discussed at the conference and, in response to appeals from Victoria for more support, Menzies replied that they had done well \u201cwithout a Commonwealth grant\u201d. Left with little recourse, the vice-chancellors again wrote to the prime minister, reiterating their requests.<\/p>\n As universities sought to build a case for federal funds, they faced growing internal pressures to raise academic salaries. These had declined in real terms as inflation eroded their value. Some disciplines struggled to attract quality candidates.<\/p>\n In response, in 1952 staff formed a Federal Council of University Staff Associations of Australia (FCUSAA). In 1953 it pressed universities to support its campaign for wage increases.<\/p>\n In this, universities were hamstrung by their separate relationships with their respective state governments. While some universities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, had independently granted wage increases, others, such as Adelaide and Western Australia, were not in a financial position to do so. Nevertheless, universities supported the proposal with a statement of principle that academic salaries were \u201cinadequate in view of changed economic conditions\u201d.<\/p>\n While the funding impasse continued, the weight of the number of enrolments that had grown since the second world war squeezed operations, leaving little capacity to expand universities\u2019 activities in line with international trends. In response to the deteriorating state of affairs, the AVCC conducted its own survey of the needs of universities to prepare for the appointment of a full government inquiry and to provide greater specificity to universities\u2019 requests for funding in the meantime. The task of compiling a \u201cSurvey of University Needs\u201d proved challenging and there was no certainty the members would agree to what emerged.<\/p>\n As the survey was being compiled, the AVCC prepared a public statement on the absolute minimum requirements of Australian universities. The timing was significant. On the eve of the May 29 1954 federal election, Menzies responded that he was \u201canxious not to involve the Commonwealth government in the internal affairs of universities\u201d.<\/p>\n The AVCC report sought to answer profound questions about the shape and character of the whole system, such as the \u201coptimum size of a university\u201d, the \u201cessential\u201d facilities, what \u201cspecial types of university\u201d were necessary, considerations in determining the location of these universities, what residential component was important, what departments were \u201ctoo expensive to be duplicated\u201d, and where new facilities and departments were needed to overcome \u201covercrowding\u201d.<\/p>\n It concluded that each should commence with Arts and Science, plus \u201cat least one other faculty reflecting the needs of the district where the university or college is located\u201d. These departments should be headed by professors and as \u201cadequately staffed as possible\u201d. Staff\u2013student ratios should be as low as possible, with 2,500 to 3,000 students considered optimal, even though the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne had already grown to twice this size.<\/p>\n The report also acknowledged that larger universities, with more extensive offerings and a broad range of departments, had stronger reputations. The tension between good education and reputation was difficult to resolve.<\/p>\n At the March 1956 meeting, the AVCC chair,\u00a0George Paton<\/a>, announced the plans for university co-ordination would be shelved. He considered them no longer \u201cdesirable at the present stage\u201d and went on to explain that Menzies had joined him for a private dinner at the Melbourne staff club, University House, at which he agreed to appoint a new inquiry, subject to approval from the states. Menzies asked universities for a list of names of \u201cpersons in the United Kingdom who would be suitable for appointment as chairman of such a committee\u201d.<\/p>\n This breakthrough was greeted with acclamation by universities, which drew up a list at the top of which was the chair of the University Grants Committee in Britain,\u00a0Sir Keith Murray<\/a>. Vice-chancellors had been instrumental in the appointment of Murray, and Murray sought guidance from them upon his arrival.<\/p>\n Universities set out a template for the \u201cideal conditions\u201d for a visit to an Australian university, including the time for a tour of the facilities and the order in which to speak to interest groups. Each visit began with an official exposition of the university\u2019s submission, followed by informal talks with professorial and then non-professorial staff, then a meeting with student representatives. Finally, a formal meeting would be held with a university\u2019s governing body, with subsequent informal conversations to \u201cclear up points of doubt\u201d.<\/p>\n Receiving this advice with gratitude, Murray agreed in a way that gave comfort to vice-chancellors that \u201cthe problems appeared to be immediate and large\u201d. \u201cWas anybody thinking in revolutionary terms?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n The universities\u2019 planning work that went into formulating a co-ordinated approach was not wasted. It formed the basis of the AVCC submission to the\u00a0Murray Committee<\/a>. Drafted by Paton, the report emphasised the need for \u201clong-range\u201d planning, so universities were not \u201cfaced with a similar problem in two years\u2019 time\u201d, as they had been after the Mills Inquiry.<\/p>\n Although constitutional impediments prevented the \u201ctranslating\u201d of the University Grants Committee into Australia directly, the AVCC submission urged Murray to investigate the creation of an equivalent body. To clarify this for the British members of the committee, Paton explained:<\/p>\n If the Universities are to develop as they should, we must of necessity depend more on the Commonwealth for our financial requirements, while the Commonwealth has the superior power over taxation. But we are equally anxious that anything the Commonwealth might contribute should not merely ease the financial responsibilities of the States towards the Universities.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Murray Committee considered the vice-chancellors\u2019 submission alongside those of student groups and industry representatives, and undertook the review at remarkable speed with the support of Menzies. The final report drew particular attention to the vice-chancellors\u2019 request for a similar organisation to the British University Grants Committee.<\/p>\n Menzies adopted the recommendations within three days of the report\u2019s release. The government pledged to establish a permanent body with the support of the state governments. The body would reside in the Prime Minister\u2019s Department, separate from the Office of Education, so as to distinguish it from the provision of primary and secondary education. It would have its own secretariat and, although Murray recommended that it act informally, at least at the beginning, it would be established as a statutory authority in 1959.<\/p>\n This went much of the way to meeting the vice-chancellors\u2019 request, although they might have preferred the body to have a more public role.<\/p>\n The Murray Report cited Commonwealth estimates that the number of students would almost double over the following decade, following \u201crapid\u201d population growth and the increasing numbers remaining in secondary school to matriculation. This, Murray argued, would require existing universities to take more students, as well as a new university in Sydney and Melbourne.<\/p>\n Yet this grossly underestimated the demand for higher education that came only a few years later. The [newly established]\u00a0Australian Universities Commission<\/a>\u00a0immediately found itself grappling with a system growing more rapidly than anybody had imagined. New universities cast from the mould of the old would require unprecedented levels of public investment. In just five years a new committee of inquiry would be appointed to determine how this expansion could be supported.<\/p>\n An extract from\u00a0Australian Universities: A history of common cause<\/a> by Gwilym Croucher and James Waghorne, UNSW Press, November 2020<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"