这是布拉德利于2023年12月12日在悉尼大学发表的第二次演讲的完整记录。 我感谢西乌佩利-豪科洛亚-帕亚对我国的欢迎，我也承认我们是在奥拉民族的加迪加尔人民的土地上会面的。 很荣幸能受邀在丹尼斯获得第一个学位的这所优秀大学做第二次布拉德利演讲。 我感谢布鲁斯·金，已故丹尼斯·布拉德利的丈夫和悉尼大学的邀请。 去年，贾森·克莱尔部长发表了第一次演讲，他的演讲很难跟上。 他说：“今晚，我们聚集在一起，向一位真正伟大的澳大利亚人致敬。 并有望打造一个年度传统，让演讲者不仅谈论丹尼斯和她的遗产，还谈论接下来会发生什么。 “我认为这正是丹尼斯想要的，也是不情愿的，因此，我将限制我再次详细阐述她的优点的愿望——除了说，2007年接替丹尼斯担任联合国大学副校长是一项艰巨的任务——因为她不仅在为那所大学所做的事情上很出色，而且在她作为澳大利亚高等教育界鼓舞人心、具有决定性意义的领导者所做的工作上也很出色。 我坚信，成千上万的应届和未来的大学毕业生会过上更好的生活，因为他们有机会做到最好。 机会在很大程度上要归功于丹尼斯倡导和推动的改革工作，她通过惊人的才智、坚定的价值观和坚韧的毅力，创造了一个具有惊人影响力的职业生涯，使她克服了大多数人可能会遇到的障碍。 我很了解丹尼斯。 她非常诚实，我想，可以公平地假设，并不是每个人都欣赏她做出的所有艰难选择。 然而，没有人能够声称她的雄心壮志是值得称赞的。 我们的雄心壮志是要创建一个更强大的社会，我认为《2008年澳大利亚高等教育评论》执行摘要中的几段话说明了这一雄心壮志。 澳大利亚面临高等教育史上的关键时刻。 国际上一致认为，一个国家的高等教育体系的覆盖范围、质量和表现将是其经济和社会进步的关键决定因素。 如果我们要保持我们的高生活水平，以强大的民主和文明公正的社会为基础，我们需要一个卓越的、具有国际竞争力的高等教育体系。 高等教育显然将是培养熟练劳动力的主要贡献者，但我们必须前所未有地解决所有公民分享其利益的权利问题。 高等教育将继续是我们法律、经济、社会和文化机构的基石，也是澳大利亚研究和创新体系的核心。 今天，我想在这些话发表大约15年后开始反思，因为我相信它们的意义并没有减弱，但可以说，在一个似乎更加分裂的世界里，在一些地方，文明、公正和民主程度更低，它们变得更加紧迫。 为了设置场景，在过去十年左右的全球发展的推动下，我将参考《经济学人》每年发布的民主指数，承认所使用的方法会受到一些人的批评。 该指数基于对五个类别的评估，即：•选举过程和多元化•政府运作•政治参与•政治文化•公民自由——如果这些类别的总分大于8分，则最高可获得10分，一个国家被判断为完全民主国家。 2022年接受调查的167个国家中，有24个被判定为完全民主国家，约8%的全球人口生活在这些民主国家——8%！只有8个国家的得分超过9分，依次是：挪威、新西兰、冰岛、瑞典、芬兰、丹麦、瑞士和爱尔兰。 澳大利亚队以8分的成绩取得好成绩。 71分，但自2020年调查以来，尽管得分为9分，但已从9分以上的组中滑出。 2012年22。 在其他民主指数下滑的国家中，加拿大的民主指数为8。 88分，而美国现在的成绩是7分。 85，因此属于《经济学人》所称的“有缺陷的民主”类别，在167个国家中，得分从0到0不等。 32名，阿富汗167名，挪威9名。 81在1号。 我们有幸生活在一个强大的民主国家，我非常感激能成为其中的一员。 我担心的是，我们不能把民主国家的福祉视为理所当然，我在传统上运作良好的民主国家看到了一些令人担忧的迹象，这些迹象不应被忽视，应该在可能的情况下予以反击。 在这一点上，我想介绍基尼系数的概念。 简单地说，基尼系数是衡量人口收入分配的指标。 基尼系数越高，不平等程度越大，高收入者在总收入中所占的比例要高得多。 尽管我不是一个想象中的社会科学家，但同行评审文献中报道的一些实证研究得出结论，以基尼系数衡量的经济不平等会降低个人对民主的支持。 有趣的是，在经济学家民主指数中平均排名前九位的国家基尼系数较低，当然也远低于美国、南非和巴西等国。 2016年，美国收入最高的1%人群占国民收入的21%，占全国财富的38%。 虽然澳大利亚的收入和财富分配更加平均，但这里和其他地方出现了财富不平等加剧的趋势。 自全球金融危机以来，学术文献一直提到所谓的民主衰退，正如k所指出的那样。 页。 黄，“经济学家和政治学家探讨了经济不平等的原因及其与西方民粹主义兴起的联系”。 2023; 166 (1): 27-51]。 有人进一步认为，经济不平等对各地区人民对民主的支持产生了负面影响，尤其是在那些感到压力的群体中，如年轻人和老年人。 更简单地说，如果你觉得自己被甩在了后面，并观察到财富分配越来越扭曲，那么你可能更有可能得出结论，认为目前的社会状况不适合你。 这可能会导致缺乏社会凝聚力，甚至对现有民主进程的支持度降低。 套用我早些时候引用的《布拉德利评论》执行摘要的摘录：如果你想拥有一个强大的社会，确保每个有资格这样做的人都有机会接受12年级后的教育。 退一步说：尽你所能确保每个人都有机会首先获得这个机会。 虽然有些人可能认为这是一种成本，但它应该被视为一种谨慎的投资，以维持和进一步改善我们共同分享和贡献的美好社会。 从我作为一个外行读者的角度来看，文学作品似乎对这些问题相当清楚。 教育状况与终身收入之间存在相关性。 因此，让更多的人有机会接受毕业后的教育，不仅可以解决技能短缺的问题，还可能提供更公平的财富分配和对社会的更大程度的信任。 我是家里第一个接受12年级教育的人。 我父亲九年级离开学校，开了一家小鱼店。 我母亲是一名护士，1960年至1970年间，我们住在一套租来的一居室小公寓里。 我有一种语言障碍，使我一年都无法上学。 当我最终到达学校时，我从学校提供的言语病理学家那里受益匪浅，经过长时间的一对一治疗，他基本上解决了我的问题。 从那以后，我在学校开始表现很好。 我有一些朋友，他们的父母受过良好的教育，住在好房子里&然而，相对于他们，我从未感到教育上的劣势。 我很感激，也将永远感激并支持那些使我成长和成功的社会支持。 现在，当然了，支持我的不仅仅是社会。 “我母亲明确表示，取得好成绩是不够的。 并不是所有的孩子都那么幸运，孩子们出生在截然不同的环境中，这似乎是生活中最不公平的环境之一。 正如现任首相兼内阁首脑格林•戴维斯在《论人生的彩票》一书中指出的那样：“出生总是一场赌博，但接下来的生活必须与同样的机会游戏捆绑在一起吗？这令人沮丧。”。 墨尔本研究所的研究证实，出生在不利地位的孩子在成年后很难摆脱不利地位。 来自贫困家庭的儿童遭受成年贫困的可能性是普通儿童的五倍，需要社会住房的可能性是一般儿童的2.5倍。 对于我们社会中最贫穷的人来说，社会流动性受到高度限制。 每次抽奖，都会出现相同的结果。 “这种不可取的情况确实得到了生活经验的证实。 2015年，圣路易斯联邦储备局发布了一份报告，指出受过高等教育的家庭与没有受过高等教育家庭之间的贫富差距。 研究发现：在拥有研究生学位的家庭中，拥有至少100万美元的几率高于三分之一。 在没有高中文凭的家庭中，这一比例约为110分之一。 这种差距不仅是教育水平的结果，而且越来越反映出如果你之前的几代人都受过教育，那么继承的财富会更大。 因此，尽管获得良好的教育是社会流动的基础，但矛盾的是，它也会加剧财富不平等，因为受过教育的家庭的孩子更有可能因为家庭传统而接受教育，并获得更多的机会在家里或在更正式的幼儿教育环境中从事学前活动。 2014年，国际货币基金会报告了一项关于财富分配的大型研究，并得出结论：•平均而言，社会繁荣的增加会降低不平等现象。 •一个国家gdp的增长提高了穷人和中产阶级的相对收入份额，而牺牲了最富有的20%。 换言之，不仅穷人和中产阶级从经济增长中受益，而且他们实际上比富人受益更多——而且————————教育政策——尤其是那些专注于公平和技能的政策——可能是国家长期减少收入差距的最有力杠杆之一。 另一项研究表明，高人均国民总收入降低了个人层面对经济平等的需求水平&我认为这意味着，人均gdp高的社会，以及确保充分分享财富的政策，将减少不太富裕的人被甩在后面的感觉。 在这种情况下，重要的是要提醒我们自己，虽然我们的财富和人均gdp可以通过成功的采掘业来增加，但这些资源是有限的。 具有无限价值的是受益于受过教育的劳动力，以杰出的研究为基础，以社会需求为依据，并用于社会利益。 正如丹尼斯所指出的，大学是这一结果的基础。 因此，回顾一下：以《布拉德利评论》执行摘要中的断言为出发点：如果我们要保持我们的高生活水平，以强大的民主和文明公正的社会为基础，我们需要一个卓越的、具有国际竞争力的高等教育体系。 •只有24个国家（占全球人口的8%）被认为生活在功能民主国家。 •当前的全球趋势显示出民主国家状况令人担忧的迹象，我们不能认为民主国家的力量是理所当然的。 •当弱势群体感到落后时，对民主的支持就会减弱（e。 克。 退休后没有足够收入的年轻人和老年人）。 •对民主的支持似乎与相对较低的基尼系数相关——这表明相对低收入的差距。 •教育政策——尤其是那些专注于公平和技能的政策——可能是各国长期减少收入差距的最有力杠杆之一。 •当人均国民生产总值在增长时（通常是强大的研发努力的结果），如果伴随着向不太富裕的人转移福利，收入差距的扩大不一定会导致对民主的缺乏支持。 毫无疑问，在我们拥有高人均gdp和生活在运转良好的民主国家的令人羡慕的地位中，受教育的机会发挥了重要作用。 然而，我们不能想当然地认为这是理所当然的，而且有迹象表明，为了所有人的利益，我们应该下定决心做得更好。 阿德莱德大学副校长兼校长peter høj ac教授再次回到《布拉德利评论》中的关键一段：国际上一致认为，一个国家的高等教育系统的覆盖范围、质量和表现将是其经济和社会进步的关键决定因素。 如果我们要保持我们的高生活水平，以强大的民主和文明公正的社会为基础，我们需要一个卓越的、具有国际竞争力的高等教育体系。 它进一步表示：高等教育将继续是我们法律、经济、社会和文化机构的基石，也是澳大利亚研究和创新体系的核心。 我认为我试图联系起来的更为脆弱的观察与《布拉德利评论》中自信大胆的声明之间没有矛盾。 那么，在它发布大约15年后，我们如何继续追求丹尼斯·布拉德利希望澳大利亚实现的隐含目标呢？首先，我们应该承认，正如克莱尔部长在去年第一次布拉德利演讲中指出的那样，已经取得了巨大的成就。 然而，同样明显的是，一个与低ses参与高等教育有关的关键目标尚未实现，我将在总结发言中再次谈到这一点。 再加上相对低迷的经济增长和整体经济的创新，这可能会导致我们原本美好的民主社会的支持率下降。 我很幸运地跟随丹尼斯在澳大利亚联合大学担任风险投资经理，并由现任澳大利亚大学校长戴维·劳埃德继任。 大卫和我一样，也是家庭第一的毕业生，也是一个从接受高等教育中受益匪浅的人。 我们在大多数事情上都达成了一致，当谈到让我们的步伐充满活力时，没有什么比看到年轻人从我们的机构毕业更好的了。 当我们知道他们中的许多人——像我们一样——是家庭中第一个获得我们认为改变生活的资产——即课后教育时，这尤其令人振奋。 大卫和我分别在2018年和2011年实现了另一个目标，即合并阿德莱德大学和南澳大利亚大学。 两次我们都征求了丹尼斯的意见，她都表示支持。 事实上，当2018年的尝试失败时，大卫接到丹尼斯的电话，丹尼斯说的话大意是：“你（咒骂）把它装瓶了！”你永远不会怀疑丹尼斯在想什么。 我们得出的结论是丹尼斯仍然赞成合并！然而，在这些大学并不知情的情况下，自2018年“失败”以来，南澳大利亚劳工反对党领袖彼得·马利诺斯卡斯本人一直在考虑潜在的大学合并的价值。 在没有任何机构参与的情况下，他于2020年末宣布了其政党的第一个选前政策立场，简洁地命名为南澳大利亚大学合并。 该政策指出，如果“独立委员会确定大学合并符合南澳大利亚州经济和人民福利的利益，那么合并将是工党政府的第一任期优先事项”。 2022年3月，马林纳斯卡和萨工党在选举中以压倒性优势获胜，并由此为承诺的“合并委员会”提供了明确的公共授权。 阿德莱德大学（universityofadelaide）和南澳大利亚大学（universityofsouthAustralia）都已经在思考，在南澳大利亚组建政府的劳动力将带来哪些机遇和必要条件。 长话短说，经过包括数万人时的非常广泛的可行性研究，2023年6月，这两所大学的理事会独立决定，为未来组建一所新的联合大学，即阿德莱德大学，将符合各自机构和南澳大利亚州人民的最大利益。 2023年7月2日，两位大法官凯瑟琳•布兰森（catherine branson ac kc）和保罗•卡尔（pauline carr）签署了一项具有约束力的协议。 随后进行了为期两个多月的议会调查，阿德莱德大学成立联合委员会的报告指出：“根据所收到的证据，委员会认为，阿德莱德大学和南澳大利亚大学合并为新的阿德莱德大学可能会促进南澳大利亚州的经济和社会利益。”。 随后，议会两院很快通过了相应的法案，随后通过了皇家批准，制定了《阿德莱德大学法》。 你可能会问，为什么会出现这种支持？主要驱动力是建立协同优势，实现以下愿景&这一愿景显然与我们各自的理事会和澳大利亚议会产生了共鸣：澳大利亚新的目标大学是一所具有全球地位的当代领先综合大学。 我们致力于通过解决教育不平等问题，通过我们的行动，通过我们学生、员工和校友的成功和影响，确保社会的繁荣、福祉和凝聚力。 与我们服务的社区合作；我们进行规模和重点的卓越未来研究。 虽然上述愿景是从一开始就发展起来的，但我们很高兴地看到，它与《布拉德利评论》执行摘要中的关键信息大致一致——你现在就知道了！它非常雄心勃勃，因为它旨在实现公平议程和合作研究议程，从而实现经济增长和其他社会利益&我推测这两个关键驱动因素支撑着强大的公民、凝聚力和民主社会。 通过我们28年的大学管理经验，以及之前两个顶尖的国家研究机构，大卫和我都承认这是一个巨大的项目，并非没有执行风险，但同样的经历也让我们得出结论，公平和卓越不是相互排斥的，而是可以说是相辅相成的——当然是在社会层面。 为了说明这一点，以下是新阿德莱德大学的几个既定目标：我们将通过多样化学生群体、加强招聘渠道和扩大其国际足迹，提高澳大利亚年轻人从事高技能工作的比例，并提高整体教育水平。 •成为南澳大利亚经济创新、增长和竞争力的催化剂，促进行业伙伴关系，支持初创企业，推动研究商业化，并有效管理知识产权。 在我们合并的同时，澳大利亚联邦政府正在对高等教育格局进行政策审查&大学协议程序，这可能会为大学奠定新的标志，并提出新的资金安排。 一些人认为，这项由政府资助的正在进行的高等教育审查是我们停止努力的原因，但我们一直在努力确保我们参与到这一关键过程中，我们提议的未来新大学与7月份发布的澳大利亚大学协议中期报告非常一致。 虽然我们对新机构本身抱有雄心壮志，但它主要是通过我们相信它将为社会带来的利益。 提供这样的福利需要的不仅仅是12年级后教育（包括职业教育）的巨大“协议”。 它需要一个系统，能够最大限度地否定出生在不利环境中的后果，无论其表现形式如何&正如格林戴维斯雄辩地描述的那样。 不那么优雅地说，我认为，任何在大学层面产生有意义的社会影响的雄心都取决于从摇篮到至少12年级发生的事情。 当然，这并不是一个深刻而深刻的见解，但令人鼓舞的是，在南澳大利亚创建我们新的专门大学的雄心与2022年10月马林纳斯卡政府发起的皇家幼儿教育和护理委员会不谋而合。 前总理juliagillard ac在南澳大利亚长大，曾就读于那里的公立学校。南澳大利亚州州长francesadamson ac授予她皇家专员的权力。 在我看来，这是一份具有里程碑意义的报告，我将不得不引用吉拉德委员的一句话：“为了为我们的国家建设一个伟大的未来，我们必须投资于我们的孩子。 现在的科学告诉我们，从出生到入学的早期投资回报最大，90%的大脑发育发生在孩子生命的前五年。 这就是为什么最好的开始为更美好的未来奠定了基础。 总理马林纳斯卡说：“首先，这是为了确保更少的儿童在入学时易受发育影响。 “我们正在立即开始工作，投资于基础设施、劳动力和治理改革，以实现这一愿景。 “在让孩子们为上学做好充分准备后，下一项任务是确保他们安全通过该系统，并创建支持性的‘泳道’，引导他们成功完成学业，并怀着巨大的信念和雄心成为最好的自己。 据预测，未来10个新工作岗位中有9个需要接受12年级后的教育，对于很大一部分离校生（可能高达50%）来说，这将意味着某种程度的大学教育。 要做到这一点，许多来自没有大学学历的家庭的人需要相信大学也对他们开放。 学校和家庭在这方面显然是至关重要的，但大学也可以提供帮助。 高等教育部门如何直接支持儿童教育的一个例子是儿童大学。 儿童大学是一个了不起的项目，旨在支持所有儿童，尤其是那些最弱势社区的儿童，让他们看到自己光明、有前途、令人兴奋的未来。 它侧重于通过护照系统提供学习体验。 当孩子们完成护照后，他们就有资格参加毕业典礼&带上帽子和长袍。 这样一个项目的价值非常明确，孩子们可以看到和体验一些原本可能被认为遥不可及的东西。 儿童大学今年满10岁。 它始于2013年的阿德莱德大学，当时只有44名学生，自那以后，已有47000多名学生毕业于澳大利亚、新西兰和毛里求斯。 仅今年一年，阿德莱德大学就与165所学校合作（其中109所来自低收入、地区或偏远社区），5342名儿童和年轻人参加了该项目，4800名学生在南澳大利亚大都市和地区的19个典礼上毕业，骄傲的家庭成员也出席了典礼。 向这些年轻人传达的关键信息是：你是一个成功的人&大学也适合你。 就我个人而言，自2007年以来，我已经以vc的身份参加了200多场毕业典礼，这些毕业典礼是令人难忘的，尤其是当一位过去的儿童大学毕业生帮助主持典礼时，作为一名大学毕业生！结论：我们非常幸运地生活在世界上最富有的民主国家之一，受到大多数人的羡慕。 毫无疑问，在我们拥有高人均gdp和生活在运转良好的民主国家的令人羡慕的地位中，受教育的机会发挥了重要作用。 然而，我们不能想当然地认为这是理所当然的，而且有迹象表明，为了所有人的利益，我们应该下定决心做得更好。 我甚至想说，在道德上有必要解决由于个别儿童出生在不同环境中而产生的不公正现象，这样做对所有公民都有巨大的集体利益。 正如《布拉德利评论》和随后的改革所表明的那样，对我们教育系统的组成部分进行彻底系统的研究可以提高绩效。 那么，我们还可以做些什么来实现该审查中提出的所有目标，特别是在涉及低社会服务水平的高等教育参与度方面？在我看来，根据我上面概述的内容，还需要了解从摇篮到高中结束的进步机会。 我感到鼓舞的是，联邦政府也认识到了这一点的重要性。 今年2月，澳大利亚财长吉姆·查尔默斯（jimchalmers）要求生产力委员会对澳大利亚的幼儿教育和护理（ecec）部门进行调查，并于今年10月23日发布了一份报告草案。 今年3月，贾森·克莱尔部长宣布成立一个专家小组，为建立一个更好、更公平的教育体系提供信息。该小组由史密斯家族十年前首席执行官利萨·奥布赖恩博士担任主席。 该小组以学校系统为重点，研究了如何“为最有落后风险和需要额外支持的学生带来真正的、可衡量的改善。 “专家小组于2023年10月31日发表了报告，我期待着在报告公开发布时阅读其调查结果。 大量的澳大利亚人参与慈善事业，以及全国各地无数的倡议，如英国皇家幼儿教育和护理委员会、澳大利亚儿童大学和创建未来大学，都表明了他们对做得更好的强烈基础兴趣。 如果这些审查和倡议的综合结果是一系列与协议进程结果相一致的行动，那么我们将有机会改善所有澳大利亚人的教育成果，从出生到上大学，甚至更远。 选择权在我们。 如果我们成功了，我们也许能够把我们从孩子那里借来的社会恢复到比我们得到的更好的状态。 这不仅是正确的做法，而且可以让我们——用巴德利的话来说——保持我们的高生活水平，以强大的民主和文明公正的社会为基础——谁知道呢——甚至在这个值得称赞的目标上取得进展。 我敢肯定丹尼斯不会反对这种雄心壮志。 谢谢。
this is a full transcript of the second bradley oration, delivered at the university of sydney on 12 december 2023.i thank siupeli haukoloa-paea for the welcome to country and i too acknowledge that we meet on the lands of the gadigal people of the eora nation. it is a great privilege to be invited to give the second bradley oration at this fine university where denise got her first degree. i thank bruce king, the husband of the late denise bradley ac and the university of sydney for this invitation.last year, minister jason clare gave the first oration and his will be a hard act to follow. he stated: “tonight, we gather to honour someone who was a truly great australian. and hopefully forge an annual tradition where speakers talk not just of denise and her legacy, but of what comes next.”i think that is exactly what denise would want and reluctantly, i therefore will restrict my desire to again spell out her virtues in extenso – except to say that taking over from denise as unisa’s vice-chancellor in 2007 was a daunting task – because she was exceptional not only in what she did for that university but also in what she did as an inspirational and defining leader in australian higher education.it is my firm belief that hundreds of thousands of recent and future university graduates will lead better lives because of the opportunities they were given to be the best they can be. opportunities due, in no small part, to the reform work advocated for and facilitated by denise through an amazingly impactful career forged through a combination of staggering intellect, strong unwavering values and resilience that made her overcome barriers most would have been held back by.i knew denise well. she was ferociously honest, and it would be fair to assume, i think, that not everyone appreciated all the tough choices she had to make. however, no one would ever be able to claim her overarching ambition was anything but laudable. that ambition was for us to create a stronger society and i think a couple of passages from the executive summary of the now legendary 2008 (bradley) review of australian higher education illustrate that ambition.australia faces a critical moment in the history of higher education. there is an international consensus that the reach, quality, and performance of a nation’s higher education system will be key determinants of its economic and social progress. if we are to maintain our high standard of living, underpinned by a robust democracy and a civil and just society, we need an outstanding, internationally competitive higher education system.higher education will clearly be a major contributor to the development of a skilled workforce but, as never before, we must address the rights of all citizens to share in its benefits. higher education will continue to be a cornerstone of our legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions and it lies at the heart of australia’s research and innovation system. today i wish to start by reflecting on these words some 15 years after their publication as i believe them to not have diminished in significance but arguably taken on even greater urgency in a world that seems more fractured, and in some places less civil, just, and democratic.to set the scene, and somewhat urged by global developments over the past decade or so, i will refer to the democracy index published annually by the economist, acknowledging that the methods employed will be subject to criticism by some.the index is based on assessment of five categories, namely:• electoral process and pluralism• functioning of government• political participation• political culture• civil liberties a maximum score of ten can be attained and a country is judged to be a full democracy if the aggregate score over these categories is greater than eight. twenty four of the 167 countries surveyed in 2022 were judged to be full democracies and about 8% of the global population live in those democracies - 8%!only eight countries had an impressive score of greater than nine– namely:norway, new zealand, iceland, sweden, finland, denmark, switzerland and ireland – in that order.australia scored well at 8.71 but has experienced a slide out of the nine-plus group since the 2020 survey, despite scoring 9.22 in 2012.amongst other countries to slide in their democracy index is canada with a score of 8.88 and the united states now with a score of 7.85 and hence falling into a category the economist labels as ‘flawed democracy’the scores amongst the 167 countries indexed ranged from 0.32 for afghanistan at number 167, to norway at 9.81 at number 1. we are privileged to live in a strong democracy and i am very grateful to be part of it. my concern is that we cannot take the wellbeing of our democracies for granted and i see some worrying signs in traditionally well-functioning democracies that should not be ignored and should be countered where possible. at this point i wish to introduce the concept of the gini coefficient.simply put, the gini coefficient is a measure of the distribution of income across a population.a higher gini coefficient indicates greater inequality, with high-income individuals receiving much larger percentages of the population’s total income.whilst i am not a social scientist by any stretch of imagination, some empirical studies reported in the peer reviewed literature conclude that economic inequality, measured by the gini coefficient, drives down an individual’s support for democracy. interestingly, the countries occupying the nine top spots in the economist democracy index on average have low gini coefficients and certainly much lower than those of countries such as the united states, south africa and brazil.in 2016, the top 1% of earners in the united states accounted for 21% of national income and 38% of the nation’s wealth. whilst income and wealth are more equally distributed in australia, there is a trend towards greater wealth inequality emerging here and elsewhere.since the global financial crisis, the academic literature has referred to a so-called democratic recession and, as pointed out by k.p. huang, “economists and political scientists have explored the causes of economic inequality and its link with the rise of populism in the west” [quote from kp huang soc indic res. 2023; 166(1): 27–51]. it has been further argued that economic inequality negatively affects people’s support for democracy across regions, particularly amongst those groups who feel pressure – such as the young and the elderly. put more simply, if you feel left behind and observe wealth distribution is increasingly skewed, then you may be more likely to conclude that society in its current shape is not working for you. this could result in lack of social cohesion and indeed a lesser buy-in to existing democratic processes.to paraphrase the extract i quoted from the bradley review’s executive summary earlier: if you want to have a strong society – make sure that everyone who is qualified to do so gets an opportunity to get a post-year 12 education. to take it back a step further: do all that you can to ensure that everyone gets the chance to qualify for that opportunity in the first place.whilst some may see this as a cost, it should be seen as a prudent investment in maintaining and further improving the fine society we all share and contribute to.from my perspective as a lay reader, the literature seems reasonably clear on these matters. there is a correlation between educational status and life-time earnings. so, it follows that giving more people an opportunity to receive a post-school education will not only address skills shortages but likely also provide a more even distribution of wealth and a greater degree of trust in society.i was first in family to get a year 12 education. my father left school at year nine and ran a small fish-shop. my mother was a nurse and we lived in a small one-bedroom rented flat between 1960 and 1970.i had a speech impediment that held me back from school for a year. when i finally got to school, i benefitted greatly from a school-supplied speech pathologist who largely fixed my problems after an extended period of one-on-one sessions. i started to do well at school after that. i had friends whose parents were well educated and lived in good houses – and yet – i have never felt educationally disadvantaged relative to them. i am grateful and will always be grateful for, and supportive of, the societal support that enabled me to thrive and succeed.now, of course – it was not only society that supported me. my father always said to me: “peter, get an education – it can never be taken away from you.” and my mother made it clear that achieving well was not good enough.not all children are that lucky and it seems one of the most unfair circumstances of life that children are born into wildly differing circumstances.as the current head of prime minister and cabinet glyn davis pointed out in his book, on life’s lottery:“birth is always a gamble but must the life that follows be tied to the same game of chance?it is dispiriting. studies by the melbourne institute confirm that children born into disadvantage struggle to break out of disadvantage in adulthood. a child from an impoverished background is five times more likely to suffer adult poverty and two and half times more likely to need social housing.for the poorest in our society, social mobility is highly constrained. each time the lottery plays, the same results emerge.”this undesirable situation is indeed borne out by the lived experience. in 2015, the federal reserve of st louis released a report that indicated the wealth disparity between families of advanced education and those without it.it found that: among families with a graduate degree, the chances of having at least $1 million are better than one in three. among families without a high school diploma, the chances are about one in 110.such disparity is not solely the consequence of education level, but increasingly also reflective of larger inherited wealth if the generations before you were educated. so, whilst attaining a good education is a foundation for social mobility, it can paradoxically also reinforce wealth inequality as children from educated families are much more likely to pursue education because of family tradition and gain greater opportunities to engage in pre-school activities at home, or in more formal early childhood educational settings.in 2014 the international monetary foundation reported a big study on wealth distribution and concluded that:• increased societal prosperity, on average, leads to lower inequality. • growth in a country’s gdp boosts the relative income share of the poor and the middle class at the expense of the richest 20 percent. in other words, not only do the poor and the middle-class benefit from growth, but they also actually benefit proportionately more than the rich – and -• education policies—particularly those that concentrate on equity and skills—can be among the most potent levers countries have to reduce income disparities over the longer term.separate research indicates high gross national income per capita lowers the level of demand for economic equality at the individual level – which i take to mean that societies with high gdp per capita, and with policies that ensure sufficient sharing of wealth, will reduce the sense amongst the less well-off that they will be left behind. in this context it is important to remind ourselves that whilst our wealth and gdp per capita can be augmented by having successful extractive industries, such resources are finite. what is of infinite value is benefitting from an educated workforce, underpinned by outstanding research, informed by societal needs, and put to use for societal benefit. as denise pointed out - universities are fundamental to this outcome.so, to recap:taking as a starting point the assertion in the bradley review executive summary that: if we are to maintain our high standard of living, underpinned by a robust democracy and a civil and just society, we need an outstanding, internationally competitive higher education system.• only 24 countries (accounting for 8% of the global population) are deemed to live in functional democracies.• current global trends show worrying signs about the state of democracies, and we cannot take the strength of democracies for granted.• the support for democracy will wane when vulnerable groups feel left behind (e.g. the young and the older without sufficient income in retirement).• support for democracy seems to be correlated with a relatively low gini coefficient – indicating relatively low-income disparity.• education policies—particularly those that concentrate on equity and skills—can be among the most potent levers countries have to reduce income disparities over the longer term.• when gross national product per capita is growing (often a consequence of a strong r&d effort), a greater level of income disparity may not necessarily lead to a lack of support for democracy if it is accompanied by transfer of benefits to the less well-off. there can be no doubt that access to education has played a strong role in our enviable position of having a high gdp per capita and living in a well-functioning democracy.however, we cannot take this for granted and there are signs emerging that, for the benefit of all, we should resolve to do better.professor peter høj ac, vice-chancellor and president, the university of adelaideyet again - jumping back to that key paragraph in the bradley review:there is an international consensus that the reach, quality and performance of a nation’s higher education system will be key determinants of its economic and social progress. if we are to maintain our high standard of living, underpinned by a robust democracy and a civil and just society, we need an outstanding, internationally competitive higher education system.further it said:higher education will continue to be a cornerstone of our legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions and it lies at the heart of australia’s research and innovation system.i see no contradiction between the more tenuous observations i have attempted to link and the assertive bold statement in the bradley review. so, some 15 years after its release, how can we continue to pursue the implicit objectives denise bradley wished for australia to achieve?firstly, we should acknowledge that a huge amount has been achieved already as pointed out by minister clare in the first bradley oration last year. however, it is also clear that a key objective relating to low-ses participation in higher education has yet to be met, a point i will return to in my concluding remarks. combined with relatively sluggish economic growth and innovation in the broader economy, this can possibly precipitate a declining support for our otherwise fine democratic society.i was fortunate to follow denise as vc at unisa and to be succeeded by david lloyd, the current chair of universities australia. david, like me is also a first in family graduate and is also a person who has benefitted enormously from access to higher education. we agree on most things and when it comes to getting springs in our steps – nothing beats seeing young people graduate from our institutions. it is especially uplifting when we know many of them – like us – are the first in family to be given what we consider a life-changing asset – a post-school education.david and i shared another ambition respectively in 2018 and 2011, namely, to amalgamate the university of adelaide and the university of south australia. on both occasions we had sought denise’s view, and she was supportive. indeed, when the 2018 attempt fell over – david got a call from denise who said words to the effect: ‘you (expletive) bottled it!’ you were never left wondering what denise was thinking. we concluded that denise remained in favour of a merger!unbeknown to the universities, however, the leader of south australia’s labor opposition, peter malinauskas, had himself been contemplating the value of a potential merger of universities since 2018’s “failure”. without any input from the institutions, he announced his party’s first pre-election policy position in late 2020, succinctly titled a south australian university merger.the policy stated that should an “independent commission determine that a university merger is in the interest of the south australian economy and the welfare of the people of the state, then a merger will be a first term priority for a labor government”. march 2022 saw a landslide election win for malinauskas and sa labor and, with it, a clear public mandate for the promised “merger commission”.both university of adelaide and university of south australia had already been contemplating what opportunities and imperatives would flow from labor forming government in south australia. to cut a long story short, after very extensive feasibility studies comprising tens of thousands of person hours, in june 2023 the councils of the two universities independently determined that forming a new combined university for the future – to be known as adelaide university – would be in the best interest of both their respective individual institutions and the people of the state of south australia. this was marked through the signing by both chancellors – catherine branson ac kc and pauline carr – of a binding heads of agreement on july 2, 2023.a parliamentary inquiry of more than two months duration followed, and the report of the joint committee on the establishment of adelaide university stated that: “on the balance of the evidence received, the committee considers that the economic and social interests of the state of south australia would likely be advanced by the amalgamation of the university of adelaide and the university of south australia into the new adelaide university”.this was relatively quickly followed by passage of a corresponding bill through both houses of parliament and the subsequent establishment of the adelaide university act through royal assent.why, you might ask did this support eventuate? the principal driver is to build on synergistic strengths and deliver on the following vision – a vision that clearly resonated with our respective councils and the sa parliament:australia’s new for purpose university is a leading contemporary comprehensive university of global standing. we are dedicated to ensuring the prosperity, well-being, and cohesion of society by addressing educational inequality, through our actions and through the success and impact of our students, staff and alumni. partnered with the communities we serve; we conduct outstanding future-making research of scale and focus.whilst the vision above was developed ab initio it was pleasing for us to see that it broadly aligns with the key messages in the executive summary of the bradley review – which you would know by now!it is very ambitious because it sets out to fulfill both an equity agenda and a partnered research agenda leading to economic growth and other societal benefit – two of the key drivers i have speculated underpin strong civil, cohesive, and democratic societies.through our experiences of running universities for a combined 28 years and both previously leading peak national research agencies, david and i acknowledge that this is a huge project and not without execution risk, but the very same experience has also led us to conclude that equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive but arguably mutually reinforcing – certainly at the societal level. to illustrate this, here are a couple of stated ambitions for the new adelaide university:we will – • increase the proportion of young australians employed in highly skilled jobs and raise the overall educational attainment level by diversifying student cohorts, strengthening recruitment channels and expanding its international footprint.• be a catalyst for innovation, growth, and competitiveness in south australia’s economy, fostering industry partnerships, supporting start-ups, driving research commercialisation, and managing intellectual property effectively.concurrent with our merger process, the australian federal government is pursuing a policy review of the higher education landscape – the universities accord process – which may lay new markers for universities and present new funding arrangements. some have held up this ongoing, government-sponsored higher education review as a reason for us to halt progress on our endeavour, but we have worked to ensure that we are involved in this critical process, and our proposed new university for the future is very much in step with the australian universities accord interim report, published in july.whilst we have ambitions for the new institution itself, it is principally through the benefit we believe it will deliver to society. delivering such benefit requires much more than a great ‘accord’ for post-year 12 education, including vocational education. it requires a system which can negate, to the greatest extent possible, the consequences of having been born into circumstances of disadvantage in all the forms it is expressed – as glyn davis so eloquently described. put less elegantly, i would argue that any ambition to grow meaningful societal impact at university level is dependent on what happens from the cradle to at least year 12.this is of course not a deep and profound insight, but encouragingly the ambition to create our new for purpose university in south australia has coincided with the malinauskas government in october 2022 initiating a royal commission into early childhood education and care. former prime minister, julia gillard ac, who grew up in south australia and attended public schools there, was invested with the powers of a royal commissioner by the south australian governor, frances adamson ac.it is to my mind a monumental report and i will be constrained to one quote from commissioner gillard:“to build a great future for our state, we must invest in our children. the science now tells us that investing in the early years – from birth to school entry - pays the biggest dividends, with ninety percent of brain development occurring in the first five years of a child’s life. that’s why the best start lays the foundations for a better future.”and from premier malinauskas:“first and foremost, this is about ensuring fewer children are developmentally vulnerable when they start school.’‘we are starting work immediately, investing in the infrastructure, the workforce and the governance overhaul required to make this vision a reality.”having delivered children well prepared for school, the next task is to secure their safe passage through the system and create supportive ‘swim lanes’ that guide them to successful completions and with great belief and ambition to become the best they can be.with predictions that nine out of 10 new jobs going forward will require a post-year 12 education, for a large proportion of school-leavers – perhaps up to 50% – that will mean a university education of some description. for that to happen, many coming from families with no prior history of university attainment will need to believe university is also open to them.schools and families are clearly critical in that respect, but universities can assist as well. an example of how the tertiary sector can directly support childhood education is children’s university. children’s university is a remarkable program that aims to support all children, but particularly those in the most vulnerable communities, to see their future as bright, promising, and exciting. it focuses on providing learning experiences through a passport system. when children have completed their passports, they are eligible to attend a graduation – complete with cap and gown.the value of such a program – where children get to see and experience something that might otherwise be considered out of their reach – is very clear.children’s university turned 10 this year. it started in 2013 at the university of adelaide with just 44 students and since then, more than 47,000 students have graduated from around australia, new zealand and mauritius. this year alone, the university of adelaide: • worked with 165 schools (of which 109 were from low ses, regional or remote communities), • had 5342 children and young people participate in the program• graduated 4,800 students in 19 ceremonies across metropolitan and regional south australia with proud family members also in attendance. the key message to these young people: you are a success – university is also for you.personally, i have attended well over 200 graduations as vc since 2007, and these graduations are right up there amongst the memorable ones – especially when a past children’s university graduate helps preside over the ceremonies – as a university graduate! conclusion: we are very fortunate to live in one of the richest democratic countries in the world and are envied by most. there can be no doubt that access to education has played a strong role in our enviable position of having a high gdp per capita and living in a well-functioning democracy. however, we cannot take this for granted and there are signs emerging that, for the benefit of all, we should resolve to do better. i would go as far as to say, that there is a moral imperative to address the injustice that flows from individual children being born into different circumstances and an enormous collective benefit to all citizens in doing so.as the bradley review and subsequent reforms have illustrated, a thorough systematic look at components of our education system can lead to enhanced performance. so what more could we have done to deliver on all ambitions set out in that review, particularly as it relates to low-ses participation in higher education? in my view, and following what i have outlined above, an understanding of opportunities for improvement from cradle to, at least, the end of high school is also required.i am encouraged that the federal government also recognises the importance of this.in february this year, treasurer jim chalmers requested the productivity commission to undertake an inquiry into the early childhood education and care (ecec) sector in australia and a draft report was released on 23 october this year. in march this year, minister jason clare announced the expert panel to inform a better and fairer education system, chaired by dr lisa o’brien am – former ceo of the smith family for a decade.with a focus on the school system, the panel has investigated how to “drive real and measurable improvements for students most at risk of falling behind and who need additional support.”the expert panel delivered its report on 31 october 2023, and i look forward to reading its findings when it is publicly released. the very large number of australians engaged in charity and countless initiatives across our nation, exemplified by the sa royal commission into early childhood education and care, children’s university australasia, and creation of a university for the future, indicate a strong foundational interest to do better.if the combined result of these reviews and initiatives is a set of actions aligned with the outcomes of the accord process, then we will have the opportunity to improve educational outcomes for all australians – from birth to university and beyond. the choice is ours. if we make it, we may be able to hand the society we have on loan from our children back in as good and hopefully better shape than we received it. that would not only be the right thing to do but also allow us to – in denise bardley’s words – maintain our high standard of living, underpinned by a robust democracy and a civil and just society – and who knows – even make an advance on that laudable goal. i am pretty certain denise would not have objected to that ambition. thank you.
