The Forces That Played On The Faculty, 1985 to 1995 

Background.

I was appointed to the Chair of Agriculture (Animal Science) in August 1982 and negotiated a 6-month split of responsibilities between University of Adelaide’s Waite Agricultural Research Institute and the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry during which period I completed lecture commitments and transferred research equipment and funding. I took up the Chair and position of Head of Animal Production Section full-time at University of Melbourne on 11^th January 1983. In the context of changes in University strategy and operational objectives of the day, my appointment was principally on the basis of research and the breadth of discipline and broader livestock management expertise.  I held teaching responsibilities in both the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and the Faculty of Veterinary Science.

Dr Doug Parbery was then Dean under a traditional election system with the Deanship rotating every 3 years within the Faculty leadership group. In May 1983 David Connor was appointed to the vacant chair of Agriculture (Plant Science) and the Faculty undertook a full review of curriculum with members of the Board and with additional industry input.  Rolf Beilharz, then Deputy Dean, succeeded Dr Parbery at the beginning of 1984 and served for 3 years until the end of 1986, when the current Deputy Dean Professor Ian Ferguson became Dean. I was elected Deputy Dean in that year and faced a new order in the external and internal reviews and new policies that impacted greatly on the university system and particularly agricultural tertiary education and research throughout Australia.

Period of Much Change

In 1985 the Australian Meat and Livestock R&D Corporation became the first RDC to focus on the needs and opportunities of the industry. Over the remainder of the 1980s more RDCs were established managed by Corporation Boards. Each had the mission to improve the contribution of their industry to the national economy by increasing their productivity, competitiveness and sustainability, fully accountable to the industry. The intensity of industry strategic research increased rapidly.

Recognizing the significance for the Faculty’s research and postgraduate training objectives, our limited facilities and the small numbers of academic staff as “lone” individuals teaching and conducting research in their respective fields (for example animal genetics and breeding; animal physiology, biochemistry and nutrition; reproductive physiology, growth and development, meat science) I introduced a paper on Strategic Collaboration into the Faculty Board.  The proposal was to link with La Trobe University and VCAH, based on a model from the Scottish University, College and government agricultural services organizations. In it I advocated a change in the structure of the Faculty Board and adoption of a Land Grant College-type approach in which we developed stronger links with industry and also with CSIRO Divisions and the Victorian Department of Agriculture to share access to our own and our partners’ field and laboratory research infrastructure. Some initiatives were taken but the overall plan lay fallow.

In 1988 the Dawkins Revolution commenced, with a Green Paper proposing reforms of higher education aimed at enhancing the quality, diversity and equity of access to education while improving international competitiveness. With the release of the White Paper, the reforms led to mergers and amalgamations of CAEs and some mergers between CAEs and Universities. Another effect was to establish an atmosphere of corporate managerialism in Universities.  This included metrics for measurement to assess and rate research output, for example. At that stage the University of Melbourne found only one amalgamation of immediate interest, namely the Melbourne CAE which had its building on the same Carlton campus. The Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, just settling into a stable structure as a CAE, saw the need to form an affiliation and signed a formal agreement with the University of Melbourne in 1989 to seek affiliation. However any further action was delayed by another intervention, so the next phases of that story took place during my subsequent period as Dean.

Internally within the Faculty, 1988 saw the establishment through the then Dean’s actions of the Centre for Farm Planning and Land Management (CFPLM) based within the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry. The concept of the Centre had been floated by two external advocates of the Potter Farm Plan which drew together social, environmental and sustainable production objectives with planning principles of natural resource management and modified agricultural production practices. This Centre had an independent Board and employed three recruited staff members. The initial funding came from the Elisabeth Murdoch Trust and the Meyer Foundation. It was an unwieldy and difficult program to run. Some members of the CFPLM Board were opposed to use of research funds from traditional sources for reasons based in concerns that this engendered an undesirable “business as usual” approach which meant expansion of targeted projects went unfunded. As Deputy Dean I was asked to manage the program into place in the face of quite strong opposition to the Centre within the Faculty and some external supporters; this continued through the life of the Centre until it was finally disbanded during Prof Lindsay Falvey’s period as Dean. .

In October 1988 I undertook a short Special Studies Program intended to cement my research plans for the subsequent period when I expected to become Dean. On my return in December, Professor Ian Ferguson had been elected President of the Academic Board and through 1989 I assumed roles deputizing where and when necessary.

The Deanship 1990-1993

On Monday January 8 1990, I stepped into the position as Dean of the Faculty and was immediately faced with a further challenge, the announcement of a Review of Agricultural Education, to be conducted by Jim McColl, Alan Robson and John Chudleigh.   David Connor was Deputy Dean and we undertook a rapid review to map out a response to the letter inviting our faculty’s submission

We had about one month to prepare a full submission with each Head of Section taking an aspect of our undergraduate and postgraduate programs in agricultural and related education. Our response included statistics on student numbers and trends, subsequent employment of graduates, curriculum development for the four year Bachelor degrees, postgraduate course work, R&D and skill training. Financial management and research performance, including collaborative research and external contributions to teaching, research programs and research training were all covered. At that stage the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry had a matriculation cut-off score for admission to the Bachelor degree courses equal to or higher that that for the Science Faculty. About 40 % of the annual intake were female.

At that time I attended meetings and subsequently Chaired the Committee of Agricultural Deans and had a good understanding of those Faculties in the Group of 8 Universities as well as those that arose out of amalgamations of CAEs. When the McColl Report was released in December as a draft for comment the there was a strong reference to the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry  in the University of Melbourne  and a recommendation that it be a preferred “recognized provider” of agricultural education in Victoria. There was a storm of protest and in the final Report delivered in February 1991; the recommendation pertaining to Victoria was replaced.

Recommendation 10.3 The following regions be identified for the purpose of developing within each a single recognised provider: Queensland, the Sydney region, The New England region of NSW, the Riverina region of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia.

Recommendation 10.4 Subject to meeting specified criteria the following institutions be validated as recognized providers: University of Queensland (including Gatton), University of New England (including Orange), Charles Sturt University, University of Adelaide (including Roseworthy)

As a consequence the recommendation for Victoria was left subject to further recommendations:

Recommendation 10.5 The Governments of NSW and Victoria and Western Australia should, as a matter of urgency, each establish a task force to address the question of the emergence of a single recognized provider of agricultural and related education  for their respective regions. In view of possible funding implications, it would be appropriate for the commonwealth Government to also play a role in this process.

Recommendation 10.6 Recognised provider status should be conferred by the Commonwealth Government, and such providers should receive priority in the allocation of growth in the number of publicly funded student places and in the associated capital funding for agricultural and related education.

While the decision would be made by external task force, as Dean I strove to position the Faculty to attain recognized provider status. The two other providers, LaTrobe University and Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture (VCAH) had well recognized programs that served agricultural education in ways that were more or less complementary to those of our Faculty. The LaTrobe School, though smaller, had a different style of course delivery and based their integrated course on additional offerings from discipline-based Departments. VCAH programs at Certificate, Diploma and Degree levels were based more on practical agriculture, skills and knowledge (“competencies”?) being provided as relevant to the practices in the various industries.  Additionally there were other Universities in Victoria that claimed a role where they offered courses relevant to innovation and productivity through disciplinary science and technology. In this setting the amalgamation of VCAH and the University of Melbourne was cemented in mid 1992.  While the different cultures of the two organizations were clearly a sticking point for some, such amalgamations were occurring and success would only be based on commitment to make it work. As an example of successful amalgamation despite similar cultural issues, the Victorian School of Forestry at Creswick had in 1977 been brought under the banner of the University of Melbourne’s School of  Forestry, itself merged into the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry formed in 1973.

The University of Melbourne Council took a strategic decision to continue with an amalgamation with VCAH and to attempt to establish a working relationship with Latrobe University to attain a recognized provider status.  While the amalgamation with VCAH was finally reached in 1993, VCAH came into the University as a separate Company with all budgetary and operational matters under the governance of a Company Board. This meant that the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry had only ongoing discussions with the senior staff of VCAH and La Trobe University, while in both cases relationships remained uneasy.

Also I had initiated regular morning meetings with Dr Michael Taylor, then Secretary of the Victorian Department of Agriculture. One set of discussions focused on attracting bright students into the Faculty by re-establishing a Cadetship system. This was achieved in 1993 and proved to be a valuable incentive for bright students to enroll in agriculture. Since then this evolved into a scholarship system and has made a solid contribution to postgraduate studies.

The way forward with the recognized provider issue brought up again the Land Grant College concept, though clearly requiring modification to suit the Victorian scene. Land at Dookie, Longerenong, and Glenormiston had potential for use as research venues, and our teaching and collaborative research was already finding access to Department of Agriculture facilities at Werribee, Hamilton, Horsham, Ellinbank, Kyabram, and Tatura of particular importance to staff of the Faculty. Mt Derrimut was proving increasingly difficult to manage and was hard to see the Faculty sustaining its operation. With VCAH quarantined as a Company, as Dean I was involved in meetings on Governance and Operational management of that entity, but the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry had no direct access to knowledge of the budgets for the various VCAH campuses and hence made little or no use of facilities except on student tours. Even those tours were proving an expense getting beyond our means.  Nonetheless we balanced our budget successfully through to the end of 1993.

In 1992 Professor Robert White was appointed as Professorial Fellow to rebuild the soil science research capability and educational programs of the Faculty. This improved the Faculty’s position to meet certain objectives adopted from the McColl Report for the recognized provider. Also I was engaged during 1991 and 19932 in discussions with Senior Staff at LaTrobe University exploring the potential to work together through a Joint Centre. At the end of 1992 I would, under the preexisting 3 year rotation of elected Deans, have been due to stand down, but in view of the conditions within the Faculty, the state of play with VCAH and the unresolved situation of a “recognize provider”, the Vice-Chancellor continued my appointment for a fourth year. A Deputy Vice Chancellor traveled to USA to study the Land Grant College Model.

1993 was not an easy year! There were many strategies advanced regarding the best way forward, much learning about the assets that VCAH represented but little progress being made with the recognized provider status.

During my period as Dean, as well as serving on various University-wide Committees, I had had a somewhat reduced but still significant teaching load, a strong complement of postgraduate students and postdoctoral Research Fellows and continued my own research in ruminant physiology and livestock production systems, including overseas projects with ACIAR and World Bank. This was clearly inconsistent with the demands on an Executive Dean.

My recommendation to the Vice Chancellor during 1993 was that the University should advertise widely for an Executive Dean, seeking international responses. I and others submitted suggested names of potential candidates. I also wished to step down, and recommended Professor Robert White be appointed Acting Dean while that search was in progress. In 1994 I went back as Head of Animal Production Section, resuming my personal teaching, research and postgraduate supervision. In that role many of the possibilities for selective integration and collaboration could be developed at least in the area of education and research in animal industries.

Envoy

Professor Lindsay Falvey was appointed Dean in 1995 and with the amalgamation with VCAH completed the Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture was created.

I took a year’s special studies program at the University of California Davis to bring more research options into a ‘molecular science-to-animal production’ program that led to the ARC funded Joint Facility for Food Animal Research, built in the technology park at Werribee. When I returned in May 1996 I was appointed Associate Dean Research and Postgraduate Studies in the Faculty and served in that role until retirement in 2003. Through that role I had close association with the then Deputy Vice Chancellor Research, Professor Frank Larkins, and the Office for Research. I served on the Board of the School of Graduate Studies and for a short time in 1999 I served as Acting Dean. Meanwhile for the Faculty, now become the Institute of Land and Food Resources, the University leadership continued to lean towards the idea that narrow discipline specialization could solve the challenges of innovation and productivity in agricultural industries. My view remains that for agriculture, the agricultural scientist is not a generalist, but is a multi-discipline Specialist.  The Institute undertook a protracted review of its courses and with a concentration on 3-year degrees rendered itself vulnerable to choices of subjects offered by other Faculties or Schools of the University. As HECS fees rose, undergraduate student numbers dwindled and TER scores declined, the Faculty faced an increasingly difficult numbers game. The Animal Science team developed a new degree, the Bachelor of Animal Science and Management, which for a short time boosted student admissions that continued after my retirement in 2003. However with the “Melbourne Model” emerging, the Institute had but a few attractive subjects to offer as core subjects or electives in the basic first degree.

Adrian R. Egan

August 2016