COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY
Rt. Hon. SIR ROBERT MENZIES,
ON
TERTIARY EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
I Froin the Par liamentary Debates," 24th March, 19651
Sir ROBERT MENZIES ( Kooyong-
Prime Minister).-l present the following
report-Tertiary Education in Australi-Report of the
Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education
in Australia to the Australian Universities
Commission ( Volumes t and 11).
I ask for leave to make a statement in connection
with the report.
Mr. SPEAKER.-There heing no objecl
ion, leave is granted.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-What I have
now to say is being said this afternoon in
another place by the Minister in Charge of
Commonwealth Activities in Education and
Research ( Senator Gorton) who has thc
direct administration of these matters in my
Department. Honorable members will know that in
August 1961, the Government appointed a
distinguished Committee under the chairmanship
of Sir Leslie Martin to consider
the pattern of tertiary education in relation
to the needs and resources of Australia antI
to make recommendations to the Australiani
Universities Commission on the future
development of tertiary education. MayI
express the Government's gratitude to the
members of the Committee for their work,
3482/ 65. which has resulted in a report that will play
an important part in thc development of
tertiary education and hence in the development
of our coun-try during coming decades.
When we appointed this Committee, we
knew we -had given it a very large task but
I doubt that we realised just how large the
task was. The Committee had the enthusiastic
co-operation of Governments, institutions
and sectors of the public with an
interest in tertiary education. It was not until
September 1964 however, that it was
able to present its report to the Governmient-
or, to be strictly accurate to present
Volumes I and If with a promise of a third
Volume later.
Volume I sets out the Committee's central
argument and its proposals for the future
pattern of Australian tertiary education.
Volume 14 begins a survey of academic
disciplines, particularly those with an important
professional content. Volume 111,
which is not yet available, will conclude this
survey and deal with certain other aspects
of tertiary education but, we are assured,
will not affect the recommendations contained
in the first two volumes. Immediately
apparent to members will be the wide range
of subjects covered by the report and the
importance of its recommendations not only
to thc Commonwealth Government but also
to State Governments, universities and the
public generally. Many of the Committee's
recommendations require action by the
Commonwealth if they are to be implemented
and in releasing the report as we
now have it, I will announce the Government's
attitude towards the principal
recommendations. In doing so I wish to emphasize two
important points. The first is -that the aspects
of education discussed in the report are ones
for which the States have normal constitutional
responsibility. Therefore, while it is
necessary for ' the Commonwealth to determine
its attitude and to announce what it,
for its part, stands ready to do, it will also
be necessary for each State Government,
in the knowledge of what the Commonwealth
is prepared to do, to decide
what it is prepared to do-and for
consultation and discussion between the
Commonwealth and each State to take
place. The second point is that the
Commonwealth is not to be regarded
as having adopted any position in regard
to any specific issue dealt with
in the report except those on which I
shall now state our views.
Amongst other things, the report makes
recommendations as to additional aid to
existing, and embryo, universities, as to
assistance to students by way of scholarships,
and as -to a possible method of reorganising
the control and content of teacher
training. But the most important section of
the report deals with -what is rvirtually a
concept new to Australia-the development
of a broad comprehensive system of tertiary
education, with an emphasis different
from but complementary to, tertiary education
at present provided by the universities.
Because they are relatively simple, I propose
to discuss first the less novel proposals
of the Committee covering assistance to
students and immediate assistance to universities,
and to announce our decisions in
these fields before moving on to consider
the new proposals of major importance
stemming from the work of the Committee.
In the field of assistance to students the
Committee has recommended that the number
of Commonwealth university open
entrance scholarships should be kept under
periodic review, but also states that such
scholarships ought not to be awarded at
a standard lower than that obtaining at the end of 1963. The Government accepts, as
it has in the past accepted, the necessity
for periodic increases in these scholarships.
The number available was last raised by
1,000--from 4,000 to 5,000-at the end
of 1963, and we have decided that the
number will be raised by a further 1,000
-from 5,000 to 6,000-at the end of the
present year. Such periodic reviews will
continue in the future.
The Committee further recommends that
all students at universities who successfully
complete the first year of -their university
course at the first attempt, and who arce
otherwise eligible, should be' automatically
awarded Commonwealth later year scholarships.
At present the number of these awards
available covers rather more than two-thirds
of the full-time students who meet these
conditions. The Government does not feel
it should accept this suggested unknown
charge on future Budgets but it has decided
to increase the number of later year awards
* by 250 at the end of the present year.
Mr. Bryant.-That is a fizzer.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-To me it is
a novel idea that getting through your first
year at the first attempt should qualify you
for a scholarship. This is quite new to me.
Dr. J. F. Cairns.-The Prime Minister
is still in the nineteenth century.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I was borne
in the nineteenth century. I used to know
a good deal about scholarships having won
quite a few in those rather harder schools
of competition._
Dr. J. F. Cairns.-We are not all asW
brilliant as you are, you know.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Well, you
must speak for yourself.
These later year awards, which at the
inception of the Commonwealth university
scholarship scheme were less than a ' hundred,
have grown steadily since. The number
available each year was last raised, from
780 to 1,280, at the end of 1963, and at
the end of this year the number available
each year will be raised from 1,280 to
1,530. Here, too, periodic reviews will
continue. In the field of the new look tertiary
colleges to which I have referred, the Committee
has recommended that there should
be 2,500 new scholarships awarded to
students who have passed matriculation or
an equivalent examination and that these
should carry the same financial benefits
as do Commonwealth university scholarships,
plus a means test free allowance of
œ 100 to each scholarship holder. We do not
feel able to agree with the recommendation
as stated but we have decided to make
available in this field 1,000 new scholarships,
awarded on the conditions suggested.
but carrying the same financial benefit as
Commonwealth university scholarships. The
Snet result of these decisions is that, as from
the end of this year, there will be 2,250
more tertiary scholarships available each
year than has been the case in the past, the
number available rising from 6,280 to 8,530
-7,530 at universities and 1,000 at the
new technical institutions.
These scholarships are recommended by
the Committee to be available to students
for full-time study only but the Government
does not accept this recommendation. We
believe there may well be many valid
personal reasons why a student chooses to
do a part-time course, and that no student
who does wish to do such a course, and
who has earned a Commonwealth Scholarship,
should have his preference subject to
a veto. Furthermore, the new Institutes of
Colleges-I will say more about those in a
moment-and the industrial leaders with
whom they will no doubt confer, may desire
to include part-time courses as part of their
curricula, and in some States considerable
emphasis may be placed on part-time as
distinct from full-time courses. If this happens
students should not be prevented from
winning a scholarship to take up such
courses. Our scholarships for tertiary education
will therefore in the future, as in the
past, be available for either full-time or
part-time study as the scholarship winner
chooses. In discussing the financial benefits which
such scholarships should carry the Committee
confines itself to recommending that
the living allowances and the means test
applied to these allowances should be periodically
reviewed. It recommends also that
a text book allowance should be given to
scholarship holders. We, of course, have
always accepted the principle of periodic
reviews of allowances and indeed, as a
result of the last review, living allowances
were increased as from January this year,
and the means test applied to such allowances
was liberalised. We shall continue to apply this principle. A text book allowance,
however, poses very considerable administrative
problems because it would be necessary
to ensure that any allowance did, in
fact, go to books and equipment, and because
requirements would vary considerably
between universities, between faculties,
and between years in any given faculty.
Therefore all I can say as to this proposal
at the moment is that we intend to ask
the Vice-Chancellors of the universities to
discuss with us the problems raised by the
recommendation, and by the comment I
have just made.
The Committee suggested that the universities
study and report upon the feasibility
of their having funds available for making
loans to students in special cases of hardship.
While recognising the desirability of
loan schemes, we regard these as matters
for the universities' internal administration.
The Commonwealth therefore will not make
special financial provision for student loan
funds. Moving to specific and immediate
financial proposals regarding universities,
the Committee has recommended that some
additional capital funds should be made
available to some universities, which it
designates, during this 1964-66 triennium.
These grants are designed to ensure that the
new Universities of Macquarie in New
South Wales and La Trobe in Victoria
will be ready to begin operation at the beginning
of 1967 as planned; that Redford
Park in Adelaide will be able to open in
1966 as planned; that site works will take
place at the University of Newcastle and
the Townsville University College; and that
a start will be made in taking the preliminary
steps for the establishment of a second
university in Brisbane by 1970. In the cases
of Macquarie and La Trobe, the grants are
additional to the establishment grants of
œ 1.1m. each for Macquarie and La Trobe.
The Commonwealth share of these grants
was appropriated by the Parliament for
these universities in October 1963. That is
the œ 1.1 million in the case of each. All of
these are grants for definite projects which
have been examined in detail, and recommended
on, by the Universities Commission
and are in a field which is familiar.
The sums recommended for each university
are given in a list which, with the concurrence
of honorable members, I now
incorporate in " Hansard
Interim Capital Grants to Universities for
1965 and 1966.
Macquarie University 1,000,000
La Trobe University 750,000
University of Adelaide at Bedford
Park 400,000
Townsville University College 100,000
Newcastle University 100,000
Second university institution in
Brisbane 100,000
They total œ 2,450,000, of which the Commonwealth
share on a œ 1 for LIœ 1b asis, is
œ 1,225,000. We stand ready to provide our
share of this finance at once and will introduce
legislation during the current session
asking Parliament ' to appropriate it.
I turn now to consider the new concept
which is the heart of this report. It is that
Australia, during the next decade, should
develop advanced education in virtually new
types of colleges. These colleges would provide
for those students who, though qualified,
do not wish to undertake a full university
course, or whose chosen course is not
considered appropriate for a university, or
whose level at passing matriculation indicated
a small chance of graduation
from a university in minimum time or
minimum time plus one ' year. The recommendation
for the development of these
colleges and the recommendation that
new universities should not be established
-honorable members will see this in the
report-taken together with other observations
of the Committee, indicate a belief
on its part that universities should grant
entrance only to those matriculants whose
standard of pass was good enough to indicate
a reasonable likelihood of graduation
in minimum time or minimum time plus one
year. The Committee suggests that the new
colleges, to give advanced education, should
be developed from, and around, the existing
tertiary segments of existing technical colleges.
But it is clear that what is envisaged
is not merely a bigger and better college
for teaching technical subjects, for ' the suggestion
is that technology should be only
one of the education fields in which these
colleges should provide advanced instruction.
In them -there should be, says the Committee,
appropriate courses in the liberal
arts for young men and women. ' taking up
administrative positions in commerce, industry,
and government". There should be a
common core of studies at tertiary level
aimed at providing for all students attending the college breadth in education", and
the development of critical imagination
and creative abilities". Students engaged
in such common studies would major in
technological courses or in other courses
provided by the colleges to fit them for
particular careers after they ' had gained
their diploma.
These colleges should, recommends the
report, be provided with funds for capital
and recurrent purposes sufficient to permit
expansion and improvement in buildings,
in equipment, in the -teaching staff required, W
and in general educational facilities. The
funds are recommended to be provided, half
by the Commonwealth and -half by the
States as to capital, and in the ratioit
is the existing one-of œ 1 Commonwealth
to œ 1.85 State as to recurrent*
expenses. We, for our part, accept the broad concept
and stand ready to provide, during the
1967-69 triennium, the œ 1 for flœ 1 grant for
capital and , the œ 1 to œ 1.85 grant for
recurrent annual expenses up to the limits
envisaged in the Committee's report. These
appear to be approximately œ 4 million a
year for capital from the Commonwealth
and œ 4 million a year for recurrent expenses
from the Commonwealth during that triennium.
These grants, if matched, would mean
a total of approximately œ 24 million forlW
capital and œ 34 million for recurrent
expenses for the colleges during that
triennium. Commonwealth financial support for
these colleges will be confined to capital and W
recurrent expenses for the development of
tertiary education only, and we define
tertiary education as consisting of courses
before entry upon which a student must pass
matriculation or an equivalent examination.
It will be confined to new developmentthat
is, as regards recurrent expenses, to
expenses incurred over and above what is,
in the 1964-65 financial year, being incurred
in this field by a State. And it will be confined
to assistance for strengthening, and
expanding, and introducing, diploma
courses. We have noted the Committee's
suggestion that at some time in -the future
the new Institutes of Colleges that it
envisages may build on present proposals in
order to provide post-diploma courses leading
-to degrees. But the support now pledged
by the Commonwealth will not go beyond
supporting the basic concept of the Committee
as to new type colleges with a variety
of advanced courses leading on completion
to a diploma. We wish to emphasise this
point, Mr. Speaker, for we entirely agree
with the Committee's statements that these
new type institutions should " resist the
temptation to copy , the educational processes
and curricula of universities and that
the responsibilities of these colleges to the
community are " of a different kind from
hose of universities. Our support is founded
n acceptance of this principle, and we do
not make our support available for the
development out of these colleges of new
universities. We do not look so far ahead
as that. We see these colleges as designed
rimarily for teaching at the tertiary level
nd as catering for the diploma not the postdliploma
student.
I now turn -to the machinery which the
Committee suggests might be set uip in
order to provide the means whereby Commonwealth
and State support might be
channelled to these new institutions. The
Committee's suggestion is that each State
should set up an autonomous Institute of
Colleges which would admit a college to
membership when, in its opinion, that particular
college had achieved an appropriate
standard. This Institute would be charged
ith the responsibility of supervising the
expansion and development of technical
and other tertiary education in the member
colleges and with co-ordinating their work
to prevent waste and overlapping. It would
this Institute which would suggest allocaon
of available funds between colleges in
its own State. Subject to this supervision
the member colleges themselves would each
by governed by its own independent governing
body. We are attracted to this proposition
and are prepared, for our part, to
endorse and accept it. But we think that
acceptance and implementation of the proposal
are matters for which the State
Governments are responsible. We do not,
therefore, make establishment of the Institutes
a condition of assistance, though we
do endorse the idea, and we will therefore
he prepared to deal either with such
Institutes or with a State Government direct
should a State decide not to set up an
autonomous Institute.
The Committee on the Future of Tertiary
Education further suggests that the Institutes
should make submissions, in the way in which universities now make submissions,
to an expanded Australian Universities Commission
which would deal not only with
universities but with the new Institutes as
well. We do not endorse this suggestion. We
feel that it would be better that we should
leave to the Universities Commission its
present responsibilities of advising the Government
on proposals from universities and
that we should -arrange other methods of
distributing grants to the new colleges. We
therefore propose to have a separate
advisory committee to which proposals from
Institutes of Colleges-or from ' the State
Education Department in any State which
does not set up an Institute-will be referred,
and which will make recommendations
to the Commonwealth as to the distribution
of Commonwealth funds after it has
considered those proposals. As is the case
with funds for universities, the funds available
would be distributed throughout Australia
on the basis of assessed need in any
particular area.
I have no doubt that within the boundaries
set out there will be great variations of
methods of development among the States
and indeed, if the Institutes and colleges are
given autonomy, among the various colleges
in a State. It may be that we will see
develop colleges which, in this discipline or
that, provide courses which are analogous
to similar courses in the earlier years at a
university, and which are either an end in
themselves in that they lead to a diploma
recognised as a really significant qualification,
or which may lead-depending on the
standard achieved by the student-to postdiploma
transfer to a university, with credit
for work done, and progress to a degree.
It may be that we will see in tho technical
disciplines a diploma course which is still,
as it is now, a course leading in itself to a
significant qualification but which can lead
to post-diploma study not in an existing
university but in a foundation in each State
which takes the best diploma graduates
and conducts them to a Bachelor of Technology,
or Master of Technology, degree
in the single location where there can be
concentrated the best teachers and the best
facilities for practical research in conjunc-
' tion with industry. Such developments,
which can be determined only by discussion
and agreement between the Commonwealth
and each State Institute, are matters for
hammering out in the workshop of ideas
which will be contributed by academic
circles, industrial circles, public bodies, and
the community and their representatives.
But I1 repeat that the Government does
endorse the general broad concept and for
its part will provide œ 1 for œ 1 for capital
and El for B1.85 for recurrent expenses
to develop that concept within the bounds
wvhich I have specified.
Before leaving the subject, I must refer
to an immediate specific recommendation
which the Committee makes concerning
Institutes of Colleges. It recommends
grants, of which the Commonwealth's share
is œ 2.5 million to be available in 1965 and
1966 in specified amounts to specified colleges.
Honorable members will find their
list of these Colleges, and the amounts recommended
for each, in the appendix
attached to this statement.
With the concurrence of the House. I
shall incorporate the list in " Hansard
Interim Capital Grants to Colleges for 1965
and 1966.
Sydney Technical College..
-Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology
South Australian Institute of
Technology
West Australian Institute of
Technology
Central Technical College, Brisbane
Bathurst College
Wagga College..
Ballarat School of Mines and
Industries
Gordon Institute of Technology,
Geelong
Bendigo Technical College
Darling Downs College.
Rockhampton College 1,0000
1,000,000 250,000
1,000,000 700,000 100,000 100,000 350,000 150,000 100,000 150,000
' 100,000
The actual purposes of these grants have
not been examined in detail and are not
known to us, or to the States, in the way
in which the actual purposes of the interim
grants to universities are known, and they
will require further discussion. We cannot
therefore specifically endorse them as we
do in the case of the interim grants to universities.
But we, for our part, now stand
ready to receive from the relevant States, or
from autonomous Institutes of Colleges
where States set them up, propositions for
the expenditure at the named colleges of
the amounts recommended for each college,
and to carry on discussions with them on
the approval of and the application of
such amounts in those colleges. We do not, however, stand prepared to make interim
grants to the proposed boards of teacher
education or to the " other institutions"
recommended -by the Committee.
We do not, ourselves, intend to establish
a Commonwealth institute of colleges, for
the three colleges operated by the Services
have a specialised role, as has the Australian
School of Pacific Administration. Nor do
we propose to establish an Australian college
of external studies to be responsibl%.
for all external studies throughout Australi
since we believe that the existing universitie~
can best provide courses for external students
who need to study at university level
and that other existing institutions can cater
for those who wish to study at other level
The next important recommendation oW
the Committee is that the Commonwealth
should enter the existing field of teacher
training, both by way of an interim capital
grant of œ 1.25 million and by way of LI
for iL grants for capital and LEI for œ 1.85
grants for recurrent expenses in the 1967-69
triennium and after. Important as this field
is, the Commonwealth is not prepared to
enter it. It is one which has been the exclusive
responsibility of the States and is, in
each State, closely bound up with the State
Education Department's judgment as to th
training it wishes teachers in its schools to
have, and as to the manner in which it decides
to run its primary and secondary
schools. Moreover, on the evidence of the
State Education Ministers themselves, the
amount of capital required in this specialise
field, in order to bring standards up to whaW
they would regard as satisfactory, is not
large-amounting to a total requirement
covering the needs of all six States of œ 1.25
million annually over a period of four years.
And the recurrent expenses of the teachers'
colleges-excluding salaries paid to trainees
-are also, compared to the requirements of
universities and colleges, not great. The
impact of the Committee's recommendations
as to the length of a teacher training
course, and as to-the standard required of a
student before he embarks upon it, would
vary widely between States and the removal
of teachers' colleges from the control of
State Education Departments is clearly one
which is primarily for the States to determine.
Therefore, while we do not in the
least denigrate the importance of the Committee's
recommendation in this field, we
believe that it is one where action can be,
and should be, left to the State Governments
which have before them the Committee's
recommendations for adoption and
action should they so decide. It follows, also,
that we have not accepted the Committee's
proposals for a separate scheme of scholarships
for teachers' college students.
I now turn to some general recommendations
as to universities, on which, at this
stage, I wish to make our views plain.
First, the Committee makes the firm recomendation
that no new universities, other
an those for which provision is made in
this report, should be established during
the period up to 1975. While we agree that
during this period most of our effort as to
ew establishments should be concentrated
n the proposed new type tertiary institutions,
we feel that a firm decision against
establishing any new university, looking so
far ahead, should not be taken. The growth
and distribution of population throughout
Australia might, in the period under discussion,
be such that a new university would
be justified in this area or that. Consequently,
while we endorse the general
approach inherent in the Committee's
recommendations, we are not prepared to
say firmly that during the period no new
university should be established. Secondly,
he Committee recommends the reduction
ind gradual elimination of part-time and
external studies ii universities. As I have
indicated, the Government does not agree
with this recommendation and does not wish
the Universities Commission to adopt such
n approach in its discussions with, or its
recommendations concerning, universities.
We believe, as I have said, that there are
many reasons for not discouraging the parttime
undergraduate and we feel that parttime
courses and external studies have a
valuable part to play in providing refresher
courses for graduates and in providing instruction
at university level to graduates or
non-graduates whether such people are
seeking to obtain a degree from such parttime
study or merely to master some one
subject which they feel will be of assistance
or benefit to them.
How much effort a university puts into
part-time studies, or external studies, will
be for the governing body of that university
to decide but, for our part, we do not
believe that any university which wishes to to do so should be discouraged, and we are
ready to continue to provide financial assistance
for these purposes. Thirdly, the Coinmmittee
suggests that universities should have
enrolments which are not smaller than
4,000 or greater than 10,000. We agree
that a university should have, or should
have the reasonable prospect of achieving,
an enrolment of at least 4,000; but we do
not endorse the proposition that enrolments
should not be more than 10,000. There is
a substantial body of opinion which holds
that much larger universities than one with
an enrolment of 10,000 are occasionally
necessary and desirable. We feel that the
size of the university must be related,
amongst other things, to the area it occupies
and to the opinions of its governing body
and we are not therefore prepared to
endorse any arbitrary upper limit as to the
size beyond which a university should not
grow. The Committee -has recommended that
the triennial grants to universities and also
to technical colleges should be subject to
review so that supplementary grants may
be made when changes in salaries and wages
justify them. We interpret this recommendation
as being limited to reimbursing a university
or college for increases in salaries
paid directly by it to its employees. Such
supplements have been the practice in
regard to variations in academic salaries
and the Government is prepared to consider
recommendations for supplementary recurrent
grants to offset increased costs arising
from variations in awards affecting wages
and non-academic salaries. However, we
will need to be satisfied in each case that
, the increases cannot be provided from the
normal recurrent grants. In other words,
we do not want to break down the triennial
system which has been so significant. We
will make this our policy both for universities
and for technical colleges in the
1967-69 triennium. These are all matters
on which we wish our attitude to be clear
both to universities and to the Commission
for we would not wish future recommendations
as to universities to be influenced
by a mistaken idea of our attitude.
I
The final matter I refer to in this very
long review-I apologise for its lengthis
that of allocations of funds to universities
for purposes of research, and to scientific
research generally. Honorable members will
recall that the Second Report of the Universities
Commission recomnmended that
during the calendar years 1964, 1965 and
1966, a total of œ 5 million should be provided
for universities to support research
activities at post-graduate level. Of the
million, half was to be provided by the
Commonwealth and half by the States. The
Commission had not, at the time of the
report, reached a stage where it felt it could
make recommendations for the distribution
of these funds among universities and therefore
confined its recommendation, in the
first instance, to the distribution of œ 1 million
in the year 1964. When introducing the
Universities ( Financial Assistance) Bill in
October 1963, 1 accepted the recommendation
for this initial distribution and said
that 1 hoped the Government would shortly
take an opportunity to look at the whole
question of Commonwealth involvement in
research in Australia. This we have now
done. The universities were told, last year,
that a further œ 1 million, or our share of it,
would be available in universities during
1965 for the same purposes as in 1964, and
I now announce that our share of another
œ 1 million will be available in 1966, on the
same basis as to distribution. After that date,
we feel, the Commission should include
provision for this form of research grant,
bound up as it is with post-graduate
teaching, in the general recommendations
which it makes for capital and recurrent
grants to universities.
Of the œ 5 million recommended for
research activities in the 1964-66 triennium,
this would still leave undistributed œ 1 million
of Commonwealth funds and a matching
amount from the States. We believe that this
sum should be available for particular
selected research projects to be carried out
by individuals or research teams. We therefore
propose to make œ 1 million available
for such particular research projects and to
set up an advisory committee to which we
shall refer requests for assistance from such
individuals or research teams. We will look
to this committee for advice as to allocations,
within the limits of the money available,
for such proposals. The committee
will receive proposals, in the main, from
research workers in universities, although
applications from persons working outside universities will not be debarred unless
such persons are working for Government
authorities. Commonwealth money from
this fund will be available on the advice of
the committee, subject, in each case involving
a university, to a matching grant from
the State in which the research is to be
carried out. As 1 ' have said, these research
grants are not intended for use exclusively
in scientific disciplines, nor need the total
amount be spent in the 1964-66 triennium.
While on this subject I take the opportunity
to announce that we have decide
that there ought to be a body to advise thW
Government on the most effective methods
of co-ordinating, and achieving results
from, expenditure on research through the
universities, through the Government's own
agencies, and through any other bodies t
which grants are made by the GovernmenW
What we seek is a situation in which, the
Government having decided what proportion
of national income can go to scientific
research, and having indicated its views of
the general fields in which advances would,
economically, most benefit the nation, some
competent advisory body would recommend
the allocation of available money
among the various governmental research
bodies, the universities, and others. We will
therefore study the various methods which
have been developed for this purpose i
overseas countries.
The end desired to be achieved is clear,
but it is also clear that the means to that
end adopted by other countries vary considerably.
But the best machinery tor Australian
conditions is not easily to be dccided
and the study I have announced will there
fore take place to try to arrive at the best
answer for us. In conclusion I state that
we are ready now to receive proposals from
the States in those fields where agreement
is necessary for action and, they now knowing
both the extent and the limits of our
assistance, to carry on the discussions
necessary for agreement to be reached, and
action to be taken.
I present the following paper-
Tertiary Education in Australia-Report of Cornmmittee-
Ministerial Statement, dated 24th
March 1965-
and move-
That the House take note of the papers.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA.