campusreview.com.au
technological change and there’s significant international change
in terms of how universities are performing, and what it means
to be a highly performing university. Those things have all come
together at this moment in time.
In South Australia, there’s need for transition from an industrial
basis to some kind of new economy. It will probably be based
on advanced technology, including in manufacturing. That, in
turn, needs to be based on innovation and the creation of new
enterprises. All of those things come at a positive time of renewal
or opportunity for perhaps the state and both universities.
Are those two things the main drivers of this change, or are there
other considerations which make it worthwhile?
DL: I think one of the key things we’re looking to put across
is whether the creation of the new university will be better
than the individual parts as they currently stand. We’re trying
to project whether it would be a stronger, better, more competitive,
more economically relevant institution if we combined forces.
In terms of ‘why now’, certainly there have been legislative
changes that effectively capped the demand-driven system for
domestic undergraduate students. That’s not the driver for this
conversation, it just happened at the same time by coincidence.
We’re having the conversation right now because neither
institution actually needs to do this. We’re both successful, we’re
both delivering for our constituencies and our stakeholders.
There’s no burning platform on either side of the camp that would
mean that we have to merge in order to be better. What we’re
trying to do is the desk exercise, the hypothetical: “If we were to do
this, would we be better?”
As Peter said at the very outset, this debate has been going on
in South Australia for decades. UniSA was founded 27 years ago,
and even then there were conversations about whether a third
institution should be created.
This conversation really just takes it into a public domain, which
has never happened before, and takes it in an objective fashion.
Have you considered what the new ‘super university’ would look
like, and how it would operate?
DL: I can’t say anything definitive because we’re modelling
hypotheticals right now, but what we are really interested in is
the complementarity of the two organisations. We figured out
that if you took the two populations and put them together,
it would probably be the fifth largest organisation in higher
education in Australia.
PR: Our aspiration would be to preserve and strengthen the very
strong access and equity agendas that the University of South
Australia has, linking them into professional outcomes. The
other thing that would be interesting to try and do – because
the big pressure on universities at the moment is to extract more
socioeconomic benefit from research programmes – [is to assess]
whether there’s some complementarity between basic research
programs and industry-facing-type activities. Might they come
together in a way that could be superior?
policy & reform
they think it’s an idea worth exploring. Increasingly, the feedback is
around giving the idea as much of an interrogation as possible, to
be able to make an informed decision.
Since this idea has been around for a long time, why is it more
likely to happen now?
DL: We haven’t calculated the odds of it happening. We know that
90 per cent of mergers in the commercial world don’t eventuate.
That’s the reality of this. We’re not going in and trying to suddenly
buck the odds.
Yet what’s different is that in previous iterations of conversations,
there’s always been some change in the leadership in one or the
other organisation. There’s been a retirement or a departure of a
vice chancellor or a chancellor. This time, that’s not happening.
The exciting part for us is the idea of the creation of the new and
that is something that comes at a cost, because you don’t just
put two organisations together and suddenly everything operates
exactly as it should do, or as you might hope it would.
We have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it stacks up. This
doesn’t make it any more likely to succeed.
PR: There is a difference this time, though. That is, the openness
of the conversation. We’ve solicited feedback from right across
the community, within and outside the university community.
I think something very good will come from that, and that is a
growing awareness of what the state’s universities are for, how
its universities are performing, and whether the state’s realising
the benefit that it needs from universities, which are going be so
important for the future.
How likely are redundancies, given they occur in most mergers?
PR: We are modelling this on the basis of synergy and growth
at the moment. Our driving force is not at all in the space of
redundancies and rationalisation. It’s in stronger performance
and growth, possibly in the student body, and also in the research
programs. It’s not a specific answer to your question but it does tell
you where our mindset is.
DL: If this institution is to be a better place, we’ll actually be looking
at growing the employment in the organisation.
What does Flinders University have to say about this?
PR: They’re comfortable that they’ve got a strategic plan for the
future, and they believe they’re delivering well against that plan.
I think it’s fair to say that they’ve expressed confidence in their
own future whether or not this merger goes ahead. Rob Saint
[deputy vice-chancellor (research) at Flinders] was asked that at
an event, and I think that’s pretty much what he said.
Could you share your personal views on the merger?
DL: I’m very excited by the idea that we could be describing a new
institution, but I’m cautious enough to know that just because
something looks great, it doesn’t mean it won’t be difficult to realise.
PR: Speaking as a South Australian, I’m excited about what this
could do for the state. Speaking as a university vice-chancellor, I’m
cautious about whether it can actually be pulled off.
Can you describe the feedback you’ve received so far from various
parties, including students, staff and the community? One last thing: what would the new leadership look like?
DL: We have been pleasantly surprised that it’s been almost
uniformly positive. We haven’t had anybody jumping up and down
saying that it’s a terrible idea. I’ve heard a lot of people say that PR: That one is a matter for the two university councils.
DL: They’re going to wait and see if we can actually put up a good
idea first. ■
13