The Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture came into being as an entity responsible for the combined higher education activities of the old Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture in 1995. It provided a mechanism for the progressive integration of the VCAH and the old Faculty into a single organisation, which occurred on 1 July 1997 (refer to Chapter 13). The events leading to this unification include policy directions from the Commonwealth Minister for Education Employment and Training, a review of agricultural and related education in Australia, reviews commissioned by the University of Melbourne, and internal management decisions over a period of five years.
The Dawkins report, Higher Education - A Policy Statement of July 1988 confirmed the government of the day's commitment to achieving far-reaching reforms in the organisation and practices of higher education institutions. Couched in the rhetoric of preserving the best of inherited traditions including freedom of enquiry and expression, intellectual rigour, a broad spectrum of teaching and research, and the preservation and development of Australian culture and identity, the report focused on the development of a Unified National System (UNS) while enhancing growth and equity.
The UNS formed a major focus for reform, and while the report implied that not all institutions need join the UNS, it implied that the liberalised resourcing arrangements which would flow could severely disadvantage non-participating institutions. The UNS aimed to introduce greater flexibility in the determination of course offerings and research areas, improved control over resources and revenue raising activities, and guaranteed triennial funding aligned with agreed priorities and performance. Institutions with a student load of less than 2000 equivalent full time student units (EFTSU) were deemed ineligible unless they merged or established formal relations with a larger institution.
In creating fewer and larger institutions, Dawkins' reforms claimed advantages in terms of improved depth and breadth of course offerings, increased options for staff career advancement, economies of scale and a stronger foundation for institutional growth. In addition to the minimum size of 2000 EFTSU the report further encouraged institutions with student loads below 5000 EFTSU to consider seriously their future as independent institutions. Comprehensive teaching and research was not seen to be sustainable in such institutions and it was suggested that a minimum of 5000 EFTSU was necessary before an institution could be considered to be a comprehensive teaching and research institution. A level of 8000 EFTSU was considered a realistic basis for a wide range of programs and a comprehensive infrastructure to be supported. Tying funding to these statements provided an imperative for the merging of small with larger institutions. During the process, the Government also advised that it would not support merger proposals which diminished services in rural areas. Subsequent Ministers have not sought to change the central thrust of the policies, except with respect to funding arrangements.
The Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, which had been in existence for less than a decade, was faced with seeking a merger partner. The existing Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry at the University of Melbourne, while no larger than similar faculties in Australia, was part of the larger university, and thus unaffected by Dawkins' reforms.
A team lead by Jim McColl reviewed agriculture and related education in 1990. The review examined the provision of agriculture and related education, its effectiveness, and considering likely future demand, made recommendations on development of the sector. At that time there were 35 institutions of which 24 provided awards relevant to higher education for agriculture and related areas. Enrolments varied from less than 400 for 15 institutions to more than 800 for five of the institutions. Enrolments had increased across the country at an annual average rate of seven percent to a total of some 11,000 students in 1990.
In recommending means to improve the effectiveness of education and training, the review noted the need for:
The review introduced a concept of Recognised Providers for agriculture and related education and defined these proposed Providers as:
In the light of these recommendations and those of the Dawkins' Reforms, the implications for the providers in Victoria were clear. The University of Melbourne met the recommended minimum size while Latrobe University, the second provider of university education in agriculture in Victoria, fell well below. VCAH was recognised in terms of its size and need for continuing development (refer to box: Rationalising Agricultural Education).
The University of Melbourne and the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture signed a formal agreement in 1989 to seek affiliation. The process was delayed by the Review of Agricultural and Related Education of the McColl Committee. The amalgamation (affiliation) of the VCAH and the University of Melbourne took place on 1 July 1992. A series of reports and reviews ensued, two of which bear some further discussion. The first, in terms of reporting date (October 1992), was conducted by Capp and Caro on behalf of the University of Melbourne and took the form of an administrative review of VCAH. The ten day review included all campuses of VCAH and key personnel. In terms of interaction with the University, the report noted that:
'the University has much to gain from the amalgamation with VCAH and it is hoped that University staff will take an interest in the College and make use of its facilities. Co-operative arrangements for research could be very attractive. The College also offers a gateway to the farming community. The College too has much to gain from the amalgamation, apart from the necessity to become part of the Unified National System. Access to University expertise and facilities will be important in the development of the College. Links between individual College and University staff members will benefit both institutions.'
Rationalising Agricultural EducationIn Victoria, the institutions of interest are Latrobe University (which is amalgamating with the Bendigo College of Advanced Education from 1 January 1991), the University of Melbourne and the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture. Melbourne University's enrolments in agricultural and related education are not far above the minimum number while those at Latrobe are well below. Both institutions only offer courses at the four year and postgraduate level, and the breadth of offerings by each faculty is limited. On the other hand, the VCAH has substantial enrolments and a good breadth of courses although its postgraduate education and training is minimal and is only just being developed. Discussions are underway concerning the amalgamation of the University of Melbourne and the VCAH. The panel considers that these discussions should be broadened to encompass Latrobe's agricultural and related education offerings with a view to a single provider emerging in the region. As is the case with Sydney, consideration of the details of such a reorganisation needs to be undertaken following in-principle acceptance that a single provider emerge. Particularly relevant to the Victoria situation will be a decision on where responsibility for TAFE courses should lie and the implication for the individual campuses of the VCAH. (DEET, 1991) |
The second, and more far-reaching review, was conducted by Professor Dennis Greenland of the United Kingdom on behalf of the University of Melbourne. He examined the needs of agriculture and related education consequent upon the affiliation of the VCAH and the University. The review tackled some difficult issues relating to integration of the organisations and produced a series of recommendations which, while not totally accepted at that time, have proven to be durable in their logic in most cases. The context in which the recommendations of the report were made, noted the rapid advances in agricultural science and availability of scientific knowledge and technologies. It also noted the overall need for improved educational standards in the general community and in particular the agricultural sector, and the importance to Australia and Victoria of improving efficiencies in agricultural production systems and international markets. The need for greater attention to be paid to environmental issues and resource conservation in agriculture and related activities, and the rising importance of the Asian region as a market with consequent needs for Australians to be better informed about Asia, also formed part of the external environment against which recommendations were framed.
Recommendations of the Greenland Review included the need for greater flexibility in current courses, the introduction of electives relating to Asia, greater use of combined degrees, raising the profile of food and dairy science, maintaining the applied science focus consequent on integration of VCAH and University staff for postgraduate supervision, development of teleconferencing facilities, maintenance of strong TAFE offerings, development of research in the Colleges, improved linkages with the State Department of Agriculture and the Faculty of Veterinary Science, establishing linkages with Latrobe University, and some general recommendations concerning management and governance of the combined Faculty. It is of significance in looking back from 1997, that many of these recommendations have been implemented and others are in the process of being modified for implementation.
The University of Melbourne then established a working party convened by Professor Boris Schedvin to consider the Greenland Report. The party recognised that the combined resources of the then present Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and the VCAH provided a unique opportunity for the University of Melbourne to build a strong and diverse Faculty, with sufficient resources to provide services to agriculture and related industries. The need for a Faculty-wide overview of research, higher degree, undergraduate, applied science and TAFE programs and for articulation between the educational programs was recognised. A significant principle espoused by the working group was...
'the establishment of a system of agricultural and related education and research built on collaboration and strategic alliances. The Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture should operate on the model of the Land Grant Colleges in the United States, and provide education, appropriately articulated, from short courses, through TAFE programs, and award courses at the applied and more fundamental levels. Research should be conducted in collaboration, as appropriate, with the Victorian Departments of Agriculture and Conservation and Natural Resources, and with other research agencies such as CSIRO.'
During the currency of the working party, a series of recommendations were adopted by the University Council including:
With the approval of the University Council for the formation of the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture at its meeting on 5th December 1994, it was agreed that the Faculty would include a Department of Agriculture, a Department of Forestry, and the School of VCAH. It was recognised that this new Faculty would be the largest provider of agriculture and related education in Victoria and possibly Australia, operating from nine locations across the State with many of the characteristics of a US Land Grant College. The need for emphasis, on pasture science with particular reference to the dairy industry, an emphasis on crop production and improvement, and on natural resource management, were recognised within the overlapping agricultural provisions of the University and VCAH Colleges.
The recommendations of the December 1994 report of the working party included:
The creation of the new Faculty was delayed while the search for a new Dean was conducted. With the appointment of Professor Lindsay Falvey in 1995, the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture officially came into existence on April 3 1995, the first day of his presence at the University.
Throughout the affiliation period, there had been some reservations as to the implications of integration. The VCAH was concerned that it would disappear in the large University, and that its core values of service to industry would be lost. Some sectors of industry shared these concerns. Members of the University Faculty feared that amalgamation with the larger VCAH would threaten the academic standards of the University and dilute its research efforts. At times these concerns developed to a level which retarded progress despite the review and consultative processes engaged in by both parties.
With the creation of the new Faculty in 1995, a new approach to integration was possible. This approach sought all parties to consider working as if a full integration had occurred. The goodwill which progressively developed through greater understanding and respect of the practical focus of the Colleges and their links with industry on the one hand, and of the international research and staff base of the Departments of Agriculture and Forestry on the other produced an environment in which productive planning for legislative change could proceed.
Throughout 1995 and 1996, activities were planned on a joint basis wherever possible. Faculty Management moved from one based on a bifurcated approach between policy and management to a single Faculty Management Group comprised of Heads of Colleges, Heads of Departments and Associate Deans. Utilising the Faculty Management Group as a single clearing house and decision-making body for plans and budget, led to further integration and confidence in the ultimate merger.
Towards the end of 1996 and through 1997, details concerning changes in State legislation to make the University of Melbourne the successor in law of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, and the creation of a new University Statute to reflect the special nature of the new combined entity, proceeded smoothly.
The outcome of these deliberations is now clear. A single entity, the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment, came into being on 1 July 1997 with a specific focus on meeting the needs in the medium and long term, of stakeholders defined as industries and related parties. The new organisation is described in the following final chapter.