Academy of Social Sciences in Australia
Download this issue of Dialogue [PDF: Filesize
925.15 kB]
President's Report
Professor Sue Richardson
The annual meetings of the Academy, held from 7-9 November, went well in all respects. Following a half day meeting of the Executive, the usual Fellows' Colloquium was held on Sunday evening.
The Sunday Colloquium was initiated a number of years ago to provide an informal forum for Fellows who had arrived from their home institutions around Australia to attend the Annual Symposium the following day, and any interested Canberra-based Fellows. It is always a most engaging event. Its success lies in its ability to gather a modest number of Fellows (around 30-40), from many of the disciplines included in the Academy's ambit, for lively dialogue around some interesting and controversial topic.
One or more people prepare a short presentation in advance, and from there, discussion flows freely, drawing on the extensive range of experience, insight and knowledge that the assembled Fellows possess. This year, Hal Kendig led a discussion on ageing. Hal is to head up the new Australian Research Council/National Health and Medical Research Council Network on Ageing Well. He was assisted by Mary Luszcz and myself, since both of us have active roles in the new Network. The topic, Hal's provocative questions and some challenging tidbits of information stimulated a vibrant discussion.
The Annual Symposium, on the role of government in managing risk, was held on Monday, at the Academy of Science Shine Dome. About 80 people attended an illuminating and creative discussion of the types of risks with which government can assist people. John Quiggin gave a clear, systematic and succinct review - starting with the 16th century - of this complex issue and laid the foundation for the rest of the day's program. Bruce Chapman, author of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) introduced the idea behind the basis of that Scheme, the income related loan (IRL). The Symposium explored the many other situations where an IRL could be applied creatively to form a type of partnership between government and individuals to share economic risks. Examples included the provision of drought assistance to farmers; provision of scholarships and other support to elite athletes; provision of income support for those who are temporarily at risk of bank foreclosure on their mortgage; as a mechanism to recover small fines; or as a means to manage large health costs. As is clear just from this list, the Symposium presented a range of imaginative and innovative ideas on how to use the basic principle of a loan that has repayments tied to levels of future income, to assist people to deal with episodes of low income and/or high need. The program concluded with a panel of discussants who took a more sceptical view of the potential of the income related loan, principally on the grounds that it excused governments from responsibility for managing the level of risk that people faced. John Quiggin then provided a thoughtful summation.
Bruce Chapman, with considerable assistance from the Secretariat, arranged the program, as well as making his own contribution on the day. He did a wonderful job and all those I spoke to found the program to be stimulating and full of creative ideas. It is regrettable that it did not attract more policy makers (despite being widely advertised), for it was breaking new ground in thinking about innovative instruments for promoting the public good. I would like to thank both Bruce and all the staff of the Secretariat, who ensured that the whole program ran faultlessly.
After a break for informal discussion and drinks, we gathered again for the Cunningham Lecture. This major event in the annual calendar of the Academy was presented by Fellow Geoff Brennan - economist, social theorist, singer of renown - from the Australian National University. Geoff gave an eloquent, beautifully crafted case for appreciating the importance of esteem as a basis for human motivation. He examined the ways in which this motivation could be harnessed, drawing an analogy with Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand, to lead people to take actions in seeking esteem that have as a by product the promotion of the public good. The Lecture was followed by a most lively discussion. As is usual, the Lecture will be published by the Academy.
The Annual Dinner was a well-attended gathering that followed the Symposium and Cunningham Lecture. I was pleased to welcome the Presidents of two sister Academies - Iain McCalman from the Australian Academy of Humanities and John Zillman from the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. An important part of the evening's formalities was to welcome the newly elected Fellows and to present them with their Testamurs.
As is becoming customary, the new Fellows were invited to a breakfast at the Academy on the following morning, hosted by myself and John Beaton. The main purpose of this breakfast is to brief new Fellows on the origins and workings of the Academy, introduce them to the staff of the Secretariat, and indicate ways in which they can contribute to the life of the Academy should they wish to do so. A number told me after the Annual General Meeting that they had felt most warmly welcomed by the Academy and its Fellows and had thoroughly enjoyed their first experience of its annual meetings.
Panel meetings preceded the Annual General Meeting. As usual, we did not have a quorum at the AGM, and the meeting agreed to proceed as if we did, and to circulate the minutes of the meeting to all Fellows to have any resolutions endorsed. The meeting adopted the Annual Report, including the financial accounts. Our finances are satisfactory. We have budgeted for a small surplus for 2004-05 and have about $250,000 in reserves.
The meeting discussed at some length whether the Academy should make a statement about the nature of universities in response to press reports that the Minister for Education (Brendan Nelson) was contemplating increasing the gradations among universities, including the possibility of teaching-only institutions. After a most fruitful exchange, the meeting endorsed the following statement:
The Academy affirms the importance of research, and teaching informed by research, as defining features of a university. It believes that all academics must have the opportunity to pursue research, and urges governments and universities to sustain this essential link between the activity of research and the provision of higher learning.
It has been left to my discretion to decide when and how this Academy statement might be added to any debate.
The meeting also discussed the idea that the annual meetings be, from time to time, held in a city other than Canberra. There was support for this idea, and it will be taken further. If any Fellow has an opinion on this, please do communicate it to me or to John Beaton.
It was pleasing to be able to reflect on a very active and interesting year for the Academy. Its processes and Secretariat are working well, its regular programs are productive and valuable and there are a number of new developments that show promise. All these characteristics were on display at the annual meetings.
The Secretariat did a superb job in organising the complex set of activities and the many and disparate demands of all the people involved. We are indeed well served by them. When you are in Canberra next, please drop in, say hello and meet the team that so effectively underpins all the activities of the Academy.
Sue Richardson
2004
Last modified: 2 November 2009.