Professor Lindsay Falvey is Dean and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment, the successor of the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture at the University of Melbourne and the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture. He is a member or Chair of a number of industry and university committees and companies. He was previously Managing Director of the international consulting companies, Coffey-MPW Pty Ltd and MPW Australia, in which capacity he was responsible for large development projects in 60 countries. Professor Falvey has lived and worked in Asia for more than 20 years and maintains an active interest in Asia, natural resources and agricultural education, and international development. He began his professional career in the tropical north of Australia as an agronomist with the Northern Territory Administration. He holds degrees of PhD from the University of Queensland and bachelor and master degrees from La Trobe University. He is also the author of five books and more than 80 papers.
Barrie Bardsley was Professor and Deputy Dean in the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture until his retirement in 1996. He completed a degree in Agricultural Science at the University of Melbourne in 1989, and began work with the State Department of Agriculture as a pasture specialist in West Gippsland. He went on to complete a Postgraduate Diploma in Extension and a PhD, both at the University of Melbourne. He was appointed a Regional Officer for the South East of the State, later becoming Deputy Chief of the Division of Extension Services. In 1985, Barrie was appointed Principal of VCAH-McMillan, and built on his interest in extension and adult learning. He acted as Principal at VCAH-Burnley for a short time before his appointment as Deputy Director and Dean of the College in 1988. He became College Director in 1994. With affiliation between the University of Melbourne and VCAH, he was accredited to the University. In retirement in 1996, Barrie retains an involvement with the faculty as a Senior Associate, with a strong commitment to the rural community.
We are particularly pleased to acknowledge our colleagues who have generously provided of their time and opinions on various aspects of our work. We also acknowledge the collated work of others who have preceded us as acknowledged in their respective chapters. In particular, we would like to mention the assistance given by: Dr Yvonne Aitken, Dr Rolf Beilharz, Mr Greg Brinsmead, Associate Professor John Cary, Professor David Connor, Mr Max Coster, Ms Kathy Dadswell, Associate Professor Lyle Douglas, Ms Fiona Drum, Professor Adrian Egan, Professor Ian Ferguson, Mr Michael Ferres, Mr Bob Gray, Dr Malcolm Hickey, Professor Alan Lloyd, Mr Bob Luff, Dr Peter May, Dr Greg Moore, Mr Robert Norton, Ms Deb Ormsby, Mr Val Pollard, Mr Peter Ryan, Boris Schedvin, Dr David Smith, Emeritus Professor Derek Tribe, Emeritus Professor Norman Tulloh, Mary Vatsaloo, Professor Robert White, and Ms Elizabeth Wilson. We also gratefully acknowledge the editorial and organisational assistance of Ms Bernadette Matthews, without whose input this publication would not have been produced in time for the opening of the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment.
This book is largely structured around histories written by others. The histories prepared to commemorate the centenaries of Dookie, Longerenong and Burnley, the copyrights of which rested with VCAH and now the University of Melbourne, have been used as sources of selected paragraphs. Recent events have been summarised with the assistance of the current senior staff of those colleges. The chapter concerning agriculture at the University has benefited greatly from Professor Tulloh's journal article, his editorial comments, and the inputs of persons engaged in agriculture at the University over the past 30 years. The chapter on forestry has been prepared by Professor Ian Ferguson and Rob Youl. In these chapters we have reserved the right to edit and hence, together with other chapters in which we have had greater input, take responsibility for mistakes of omission and other errors which may appear in this lay history.
The creation of the new Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment on 1 July 1997 represents a landmark in the history of agricultural, food, forestry, horticulture and natural resource management education in Australia. It indicates a commitment from the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the University of Melbourne to merge the agriculture, food, forestry and horticultural activities into a single faculty to become Australia's largest ever such entity.
The last two years have been profitably used to plan and integrate the activities of the six agricultural, horticultural and food science colleges with the two departments of the university's existing Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry. At the same time, the far reaching changes occurring in government funding for higher education, within agriculture and related industries, and other changes related to a change in management perspectives in Land and Food, have combined to produce the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment. This story of the evolution of agricultural and related education in South Eastern Australia leading to the formation of the ILFR is a small attempt to provide a perspective on current developments.
We have willingly accepted the histories in existing works which cover colleges or aspects of Land and Food's forming entities and have quoted from those liberally. Quotes, which are usually indented are attributed to their respective authors. In other cases, large sections are reproduced from histories produced previously through the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture.
The book traces the story of the forming entities of Land and Food in chronological order touching on high points and attempting to draw out elements which contribute to today's culture within this very large faculty. The personalities in the early stages of agricultural education, including the persuaders, rogues, visionaries, politicians, academics and farmers, are, we believe, mentioned in context.
Such an origin for a great institution is not unique in Australian history. The association of boom and bust gave rise to visionaries and opportunists, both of which contributed to the introduction of a system that has led us to today's united institution. The boom and bust economic cycles of Australia particularly at the end of the 19th Century were compounded in the case of agricultural education by cycles of droughts and export markets. Such ups and downs have led to innovative political manoeuvring to sustain an essential service in agricultural, food, forestry and horticultural education over the past 130 years. Contending with these cycles has produced a resilience of spirit, clarity of vision and strength of conviction. These traits continue in Land and Food, particularly through its partnerships with industry and other stakeholders.
When tracing the origins of agricultural and related education in South Eastern Australia some interesting historical parallels can be drawn. For example, the Council for Agricultural Education was conceived as the initial governance mechanism for agricultural education which led to the formation of Dookie and subsequently Longerenong Colleges. Experience taught that the power of the Council should be separated from government to minimise opportunistic political intervention in long term decisions. This evolved into the colleges being part of the State Department of Agriculture. Later, when separating from that state umbrella through the creation of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, a council was again formed. In the most recent change of the merging of the colleges with the university's activities in the sector to create Land and Food, a new board or council has been created. Whilst some may see this as a return to the past, or even the resurrection of a sound idea, it may more fairly be seen as learning from experience. The new governance structure is intimately involved with industry and other stakeholders. This represents the change in emphasis by government in areas which confer private benefit and the evolution and maturation of agriculture and related industries in Australia.
For those who feel that we have returned to the logic of last century, it would be wise to read such documents as the statements of Wallace, the Director of Agriculture (not to be confused with Wallis, the first Secretary for Agriculture) who noted in the September 1904 Journal of Agriculture that …
'A chair of agriculture at the university would be useful in educating men who would afterwards become lecturers and officers of the Department of Agriculture, that farmers' sons would never attend in any great number and I am afraid that those who did would not return to the plough.'
So much has changed - we are charged with educating all persons not just men; we do not simply train persons for lecturing or working in government but increasingly for the agribusiness sector. The children of farmers do attend in great numbers and may not aspire to return to the plough, rather they return as progressive managers who have a perspective of continuing learning to access new technological developments. With such changes as these, changes in mechanisms of governance and indeed ownership of agricultural and related education are warranted. The corporate model aims to set long and medium term policies through the governing body and allow management to implement policy. Such an approach contrasts with the involvement of the Council of Agricultural Education, as highlighted in the 1899 Fink Commission's interviews mentioned in Chapter 2. Today's management of agricultural and related education requires a vision to implement and a clear definition of responsibilities and authorities. This is the point at which we have now arrived.
In reviewing the various histories of the entities forming Land and Food, we have been impressed by the resilience of persons with a commitment to agriculture as a sector. At the same time we note the ambivalence of government. It is salutary for those involved in agriculture and related education to consider that the general public's ambivalence toward agriculture and related fields may not be a new phenomenon. That these strong and productive institutions have been created, developed and survived, to merge into this strong and diverse organisation in such an environment, should provide hope of continuing development of the faculty for the next 130 years.
This book contains histories mainly written by others. In the final chapter we share our own perspectives on the future directions of agricultural and related education. The importance of the sector is at least as great as it has ever been in Australia. Economically, agricultural and related industries continue to be the dominant interest of Australia. This may not commonly be recognised when statistics separate manufacturing from primary industries (and neglect the social benefits of rural communities); yet a large proportion of the manufacturing industries relates to agriculture and products derived from it. As a consequence agri-industry and related industries represent a major employer throughout the country. Students who pass through faculties related to agriculture, food, forestry and horticulture, move into positions of responsibility for managing more than 90 per cent of the land within Australia. This is not only through natural resource management education but also through agricultural, forestry and national parks, and urban park management education. As a critically important sector, it behoves all who are associated with it, through delivery of education, to ensure a continuing high quality support service to these sectors.
In collating this history we are conscious that the University of Melbourne has become the main custodian for agricultural, food, forestry, horticultural and related environmental education in South Eastern Australia. In transferring this responsibility to the university, all associated with industry should be proud while at the same time maintain an active monitoring role. At this point in Australia's history, universities appear an appropriate mechanism for delivering quality products in sectors demanding education, training, research and related services. It is logical that education moves out of government departments and those small institutions unable to make the large capital investments necessary for international leadership in such education, join into larger groupings. However, lest we make the mistake of believing that we have finally, after 131 years, created the optimal structure for agricultural education in Australia, let us recall the words from the Dookie history by Aldridge and Kneen (1986) …
'In 1874 A. R. Wallis, Victoria's newly-appointed Secretary for Agriculture wrote: 'In my opinion a well organised system of agricultural education by means of academies, situated in country districts and having farms attached, will be best adapted to the requirements of Victoria.' He continued: 'It is by no means essential that an agricultural college should stand alone and have no other course of instruction connected with it; on the contrary there are many branches of useful technical learning which might be taught under the same roof'. As the above paragraphs show, A. R. Wallis can be regarded as the father not only of Dookie College, but also of the new Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture (VCAH). ... a niggardly Minister for agriculture established only one of the Colleges Wallis envisaged and an equally mean-minded Minister fired him as the Dookie Farm School became little more than a reformatory. There is a nice symmetry in the fact that as Wallis' dream became reality in 1983, control of that reality was removed from the Department which treated him so badly so long ago.'
We make no claims that the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment is the ultimate or the best structure for agricultural education. We do observe however, that in a period when reductions in government funding, and major structural adjustment which is affecting rural sectors more consistently than some other sectors of the Australian economy, that we have a large diverse and competent entity to serve agriculture, food, forestry, horticulture and related environmental sectors as they relate to South Eastern Australia. We also have the potential, through the University of Melbourne's approach in managing its own position, to be world leaders in some fields of major relevance to South Eastern Australia. This seems to contain the essential elements for continuing service to critically important industries in Australia and the world. Alumni of the colleges and departments which make up Land and Food, industries which support these entities, students participating or contemplating enrolment in courses of the faculty should be aware that here is a major international focus of education in the sciences, arts and technologies. They should note that these contribute to human development and understanding of its environment as practised in the fields of food and fibre production and environmental management.
In combining the six colleges of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the two departments of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, the new faculty brings together two major cultures. The various styles of operation and approaches to education are reflected in the different origins of the colleges and the university. In the period leading to the creation of the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment, it has become clear that each entity has much to learn from the others. We trust that some of these cultural interactions shine through the story presented in these pages.
We are particularly pleased to acknowledge our colleagues who have generously provided of their time and opinions on various aspects of our work. We also acknowledge the collated work of others who have preceded us as acknowledged in their respective chapters. In particular, we would like to mention the assistance given by: Dr Yvonne Aitken, Dr Rolf Beilharz, Mr Greg Brinsmead, Associate Professor John Cary, Professor David Connor, Mr Max Coster, Ms Kathy Dadswell, Associate Professor Lyle Douglas, Ms Fiona Drum, Professor Adrian Egan, Professor Ian Ferguson, Mr Michael Ferres, Mr Bob Gray, Dr Malcolm Hickey, Professor Alan Lloyd, Mr Bob Luff, Dr Peter May, Dr Greg Moore, Mr Robert Norton, Ms Deb Ormsby, Mr Val Pollard, Mr Peter Ryan, Boris Schedvin, Dr David Smith, Emeritus Professor Derek Tribe, Emeritus Professor Norman Tulloh, Mary Vatsaloo, Professor Robert White, and Ms Elizabeth Wilson. We also gratefully acknowledge the editorial and organisational assistance of Ms Bernadette Matthews, without whose input this publication would not have been produced in time for the opening of the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment.
This book is largely structured around histories written by others. The histories prepared to commemorate the centenaries of Dookie, Longerenong and Burnley, the copyrights of which rested with VCAH and now the University of Melbourne, have been used as sources of selected paragraphs. Recent events have been summarised with the assistance of the current senior staff of those colleges. The chapter concerning agriculture at the University has benefited greatly from Professor Tulloh's journal article, his editorial comments, and the inputs of persons engaged in agriculture at the University over the past 30 years. The chapter on forestry has been prepared by Professor Ian Ferguson and Rob Youl. In these chapters we have reserved the right to edit and hence, together with other chapters in which we have had greater input, take responsibility for mistakes of omission and other errors which may appear in this lay history.
The creation of the new Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment on 1 July 1997 represents a landmark in the history of agricultural, food, forestry, horticulture and natural resource management education in Australia. It indicates a commitment from the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the University of Melbourne to merge the agriculture, food, forestry and horticultural activities into a single faculty to become Australia's largest ever such entity.
The last two years have been profitably used to plan and integrate the activities of the six agricultural, horticultural and food science colleges with the two departments of the university's existing Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry. At the same time, the far reaching changes occurring in government funding for higher education, within agriculture and related industries, and other changes related to a change in management perspectives in Land and Food, have combined to produce the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment. This story of the evolution of agricultural and related education in South Eastern Australia leading to the formation of the ILFR is a small attempt to provide a perspective on current developments.
We have willingly accepted the histories in existing works which cover colleges or aspects of Land and Food's forming entities and have quoted from those liberally. Quotes, which are usually indented are attributed to their respective authors. In other cases, large sections are reproduced from histories produced previously through the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture.
The book traces the story of the forming entities of Land and Food in chronological order touching on high points and attempting to draw out elements which contribute to today's culture within this very large faculty. The personalities in the early stages of agricultural education, including the persuaders, rogues, visionaries, politicians, academics and farmers, are, we believe, mentioned in context.
Such an origin for a great institution is not unique in Australian history. The association of boom and bust gave rise to visionaries and opportunists, both of which contributed to the introduction of a system that has led us to today's united institution. The boom and bust economic cycles of Australia particularly at the end of the 19th Century were compounded in the case of agricultural education by cycles of droughts and export markets. Such ups and downs have led to innovative political manoeuvring to sustain an essential service in agricultural, food, forestry and horticultural education over the past 130 years. Contending with these cycles has produced a resilience of spirit, clarity of vision and strength of conviction. These traits continue in Land and Food, particularly through its partnerships with industry and other stakeholders.
When tracing the origins of agricultural and related education in South Eastern Australia some interesting historical parallels can be drawn. For example, the Council for Agricultural Education was conceived as the initial governance mechanism for agricultural education which led to the formation of Dookie and subsequently Longerenong Colleges. Experience taught that the power of the Council should be separated from government to minimise opportunistic political intervention in long term decisions. This evolved into the colleges being part of the State Department of Agriculture. Later, when separating from that state umbrella through the creation of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, a council was again formed. In the most recent change of the merging of the colleges with the university's activities in the sector to create Land and Food, a new board or council has been created. Whilst some may see this as a return to the past, or even the resurrection of a sound idea, it may more fairly be seen as learning from experience. The new governance structure is intimately involved with industry and other stakeholders. This represents the change in emphasis by government in areas which confer private benefit and the evolution and maturation of agriculture and related industries in Australia.
For those who feel that we have returned to the logic of last century, it would be wise to read such documents as the statements of Wallace, the Director of Agriculture (not to be confused with Wallis, the first Secretary for Agriculture) who noted in the September 1904 Journal of Agriculture that …
'A chair of agriculture at the university would be useful in educating men who would afterwards become lecturers and officers of the Department of Agriculture, that farmers' sons would never attend in any great number and I am afraid that those who did would not return to the plough.'
So much has changed - we are charged with educating all persons not just men; we do not simply train persons for lecturing or working in government but increasingly for the agribusiness sector. The children of farmers do attend in great numbers and may not aspire to return to the plough, rather they return as progressive managers who have a perspective of continuing learning to access new technological developments. With such changes as these, changes in mechanisms of governance and indeed ownership of agricultural and related education are warranted. The corporate model aims to set long and medium term policies through the governing body and allow management to implement policy. Such an approach contrasts with the involvement of the Council of Agricultural Education, as highlighted in the 1899 Fink Commission's interviews mentioned in Chapter 2. Today's management of agricultural and related education requires a vision to implement and a clear definition of responsibilities and authorities. This is the point at which we have now arrived.
In reviewing the various histories of the entities forming Land and Food, we have been impressed by the resilience of persons with a commitment to agriculture as a sector. At the same time we note the ambivalence of government. It is salutary for those involved in agriculture and related education to consider that the general public's ambivalence toward agriculture and related fields may not be a new phenomenon. That these strong and productive institutions have been created, developed and survived, to merge into this strong and diverse organisation in such an environment, should provide hope of continuing development of the faculty for the next 130 years.
This book contains histories mainly written by others. In the final chapter we share our own perspectives on the future directions of agricultural and related education. The importance of the sector is at least as great as it has ever been in Australia. Economically, agricultural and related industries continue to be the dominant interest of Australia. This may not commonly be recognised when statistics separate manufacturing from primary industries (and neglect the social benefits of rural communities); yet a large proportion of the manufacturing industries relates to agriculture and products derived from it. As a consequence agri-industry and related industries represent a major employer throughout the country. Students who pass through faculties related to agriculture, food, forestry and horticulture, move into positions of responsibility for managing more than 90 per cent of the land within Australia. This is not only through natural resource management education but also through agricultural, forestry and national parks, and urban park management education. As a critically important sector, it behoves all who are associated with it, through delivery of education, to ensure a continuing high quality support service to these sectors.
In collating this history we are conscious that the University of Melbourne has become the main custodian for agricultural, food, forestry, horticultural and related environmental education in South Eastern Australia. In transferring this responsibility to the university, all associated with industry should be proud while at the same time maintain an active monitoring role. At this point in Australia's history, universities appear an appropriate mechanism for delivering quality products in sectors demanding education, training, research and related services. It is logical that education moves out of government departments and those small institutions unable to make the large capital investments necessary for international leadership in such education, join into larger groupings. However, lest we make the mistake of believing that we have finally, after 131 years, created the optimal structure for agricultural education in Australia, let us recall the words from the Dookie history by Aldridge and Kneen (1986) …
'In 1874 A. R. Wallis, Victoria's newly-appointed Secretary for Agriculture wrote: 'In my opinion a well organised system of agricultural education by means of academies, situated in country districts and having farms attached, will be best adapted to the requirements of Victoria.' He continued: 'It is by no means essential that an agricultural college should stand alone and have no other course of instruction connected with it; on the contrary there are many branches of useful technical learning which might be taught under the same roof'. As the above paragraphs show, A. R. Wallis can be regarded as the father not only of Dookie College, but also of the new Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture (VCAH). ... a niggardly Minister for agriculture established only one of the Colleges Wallis envisaged and an equally mean-minded Minister fired him as the Dookie Farm School became little more than a reformatory. There is a nice symmetry in the fact that as Wallis' dream became reality in 1983, control of that reality was removed from the Department which treated him so badly so long ago.'
We make no claims that the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment is the ultimate or the best structure for agricultural education. We do observe however, that in a period when reductions in government funding, and major structural adjustment which is affecting rural sectors more consistently than some other sectors of the Australian economy, that we have a large diverse and competent entity to serve agriculture, food, forestry, horticulture and related environmental sectors as they relate to South Eastern Australia. We also have the potential, through the University of Melbourne's approach in managing its own position, to be world leaders in some fields of major relevance to South Eastern Australia. This seems to contain the essential elements for continuing service to critically important industries in Australia and the world. Alumni of the colleges and departments which make up Land and Food, industries which support these entities, students participating or contemplating enrolment in courses of the faculty should be aware that here is a major international focus of education in the sciences, arts and technologies. They should note that these contribute to human development and understanding of its environment as practised in the fields of food and fibre production and environmental management.
In combining the six colleges of the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture and the two departments of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, the new faculty brings together two major cultures. The various styles of operation and approaches to education are reflected in the different origins of the colleges and the university. In the period leading to the creation of the Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment, it has become clear that each entity has much to learn from the others. We trust that some of these cultural interactions shine through the story presented in these pages.
|
Professor Lindsay Falvey Dean and CEO Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment University of Melbourne |
Dr Barrie Bardsley Senior Associate, Institute of Melbourne School of Land and Environment Formerly Professor (University of Melbourne) and Director VCAH |