K, Y ahí qué tipo de No, no me voy a ir todavía con esa pregunta El otro elemento que tu señalabas es que, dijéramos el Aquileo Parra tenía una marcada experiencia en el tema de los

The Australian Higher Education sector had for some time been classified as a binary system operating as degree granting universities and colleges of advanced education (CAE). Each had distinct profiles, funding and staff salaries. The term ‘tertiary education’ was used to describe a broader array of post secondary education institutions including universities, CAEs and the non degree awarding institutes for Technical and Further Education (TAFE). Most of the revenue for these institutions had come from government and universities were seen as elitist rather than an avenue for mass education (Taylor 1999). The Dawkins review gave rise to a Green Paper released in 1987 which called for the disbanding of the binary system and for Higher Education to be more responsive to social policies for greater numbers of skilled graduates and tuned to creating positive economic outcomes. The Green Paper also foreshadowed the growth of the sector and alerted stakeholders to the financial imperatives of this expansion. The operation of institutions was seen as ineffective and essentially burdensome on government resources. The subsequently released White Paper emerging from the Dawkins review oversaw major reforms in the sector through the late 1980s and early 1990s including mergers and a greater focus on the market. In particular, the Federal Government adopted macroeconomic policies which opened up Higher Education into the global economy (Gallagher 2000). Universities shifted to become

more corporately run institutions destined to assist in maximising the nation’s economic growth (Schramm 2008) and driven by global changes and competition (Considine 2006).

The Dawkins reforms in 1987-1988 saw the introduction of a Unified National System (UNS) of Higher Education (Bessant 2002). Many of the Higher Education institutions merged during the dismantling of the binary system and the previously, separate elite Universities were now joined by colleges and technical institutes granted the status of university (Wood & Meeks 2002). The intention of the UNS was to provide equity of resources for all Higher Education institutions and this was to be accomplished through a productive competition between them (Eveline 2004). It was also intended to bring in greater efficiency and effectiveness to an otherwise inefficient and ineffective system of self governance (Harman & Treadgold 2007). This marked the beginning of the competition era in Higher Education.

Since the Dawkins reforms, government funding of universities has steadily decreased and the manner of allocating funding has significantly altered. In 1981, 90% of funding was provided by the federal government. In 2000 this had decreased to 55% (Molony 2000). In 2002, the Hon Brendan Nelson, as the Liberal/National Coalition Minister for Higher Education embarked on a process of deregulating the funding environment and introducing a more individualist approach to the industrial relations system in the Higher Education sector (Currie 2005). Funding cuts have driven the intensification of competition in Higher Education; this is demonstrated in competition for students (international and local), competition for research grants, competition for staff members and for resources. Universities have also had to find other ways to manage within the financial cut backs. Increasing student/staff ratios; staff decreases; making academics more accountable; increasing the use of contractual and causal staffing have been strategies used by universities to deal with the gradual funding squeeze (Altbach 2002; Eveline 2004).

In addition, the Dawkins plans included greater student intakes into Higher Education and this was accomplished through the introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) – a deferred fee payment option for students (Newman, F, Couturier & Scurry 2004). HECS was considered revolutionary and many countries have taken this type of approach as a way of increasing student numbers (Karmel 2000; Niland 2008). In addition, increased acceptance of full fee paying international students and later, full fee paying local students at the post graduate level have all contributed to increasing student numbers and helped to relieve universities of their reliance on government funding. Molony (2000) noted that through the Dawkins reforms, student numbers significantly increased in the period between 1987 and 2001 from 78,000 students to 600,000 enrolled. The consequence was that university degrees were no longer only for the elite but became, as noted by Gibbons et al. (1994): the ‘massification of

education’. This mass Higher Education was epitomised by predictions such as 45% of young Australians will begin an undergraduate degree (Karmel 2000). The increase in student numbers was accompanied by a more diverse student population, both in ethnicity and socio economic status, making Higher Education a possibility for all (Martin 1999).

The suite of Higher Education reforms from the 1980s were argued to be not merely a whim of the government of the time but rather, were mandated for dealing with market forces (Newman F et al. 2004). Market forces provided the threat of competition as well as a lure for greater profitability (Nayyar 2008). Currently, universities compete with each other domestically as well as internationally to supply education (Newman F et al. 2004, p. 2). The recent Bradley Report, which hallmarked the 2007 arrival of the Rudd Labor Government is another in the line of market sensitive reform agendas which will see the expansion of students domestically (with targets such as 40% of Australians under 35 years of age to hold a degree by 2020) and an expansion of regulation of the sector (Bradley et al. 2008). The current reforms highlight the necessity of competition in the Higher Education sector. The strategic management of academic knowledge workers, through engagement, is one way to compete within the current global economy.