Page 1052 - Week 06 - Thursday, 27 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
planning. I do not subscribe totally to the argument that increased size brings about increased efficiencies but certainly it does bring about better planning. I believe there would be considerable strength in a new, diverse institution.
Perhaps the most compelling reason of all is that the guidelines for funding universities and research are changing. Things are different now. I know that the administrative bodies of the respective institutions recognise that. I think it is urgent that all staff recognise that as well.
I had to consider why there was opposition to the proposal. There were quite a number of undoubtedly legitimate concerns - for example, the distance between the two is an obvious one - but, in the end, I think it became clear that the opposition was based on two points. I will stand to be corrected but I believe this is a fair assessment. At the Australian National University there were clearly a significant number of academics who believed there was a disparity, an unacceptable disparity, between the university courses and their staff qualifications and that of the CCAE. I believe that was a factor. I do not accept that, but it was a factor.
The other point of opposition, perhaps less strong, came from some at the CCAE. I am not sure of the extent of it but there was a concern that the CCAE would be simply swallowed up by the more powerful ANU. It was those two concerns that led to the opposition. They were not the official positions of the governing bodies of the institutions but they were the positions adopted by the people who work in them. I do not accept those arguments. It was sufficient, however, to see that the legislation as proposed by Minister Dawkins was not going to get through the Senate.
Now there is a difference of emphasis between the institutions but let us say it is a greater diversity. There is already great diversity at the ANU. I do not think that anyone there would claim that there is a total compatibility of all courses and all academics. There is already a range, but they seem to be overly concerned about accepting greater diversity. As to the worries expressed by some at the CCAE about survival, if they could not survive, perhaps they would not deserve to.
Yesterday I spoke in this chamber and said that the benefits of the casino outweighed the adverse effects. Today I stand up and say that the benefits, the advantages, of the amalgamation greatly outweigh any negative aspects - greatly outweigh them. The arguments against amalgamation are not convincing. I did not accept them but I can accept reality. I accept that the intensity of the opposition is such that a merger cannot proceed at this stage. Hence, we must proceed in other ways, and they are yet to be determined.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .