page 5

Salient Interview

David Beatson, a member of the NZBC's Gallery team, interviews Brian Talboys, the new Minister of Education:

Mr Talboys, you are a more senior member of Cabinet than Mr Kinsella was. Does your Cabinet seniority mean that the Government now attaches more importance to matters of education?

I would interpret it as suggesting that the Government attaches a very great deal of importance to education. I can't see that there's much value in trying to measure what is more than this and what is less than that...

But you are fourth in Cabinet seniority and this is quite a significant upgrading for the portfolio...

Well, this is certainly the way I would interpret it. Generally speaking, I think New Zealand—like most other communities—naturally attaches increasing importance to education.

Do you feel that this will be reflected by the diversion of more of our national resources into education?

We have been making a continually increasing contribution of the national resources into education and I have no doubt whatsoever that this process will continue. I hope it will continue at an increasing rate. Inevitably we are faced with an increasing amount of expenditure in education. What is happening here—as everywhere else—is that there is an ever-increasing demand. It's not just an increasing demand in individual fields but a demand that the changes taking place in society must be met. It must be met both for the satisfaction of the individual—so that he has a sense of personal fulfilment, which to me is the important thing—and also if you're going to get a full realisation of the potential of the economy. But to me the key is the satisfaction that the individual is enabled to enjoy—his sense of fulfilment.

Are you satisfied with the rate at which investment in education has been increasing since, say, 1960?

I am satisfied that it has been increasing at a very considerable rate but nobody is ever completely satisfied with it. I never use the word 'satisfied'. More will be done but I think you must see this in perspective. After all, we have certain resources available to us in New Zealand and though we are small in numbers the demands of our people are the same as the demands of any other highly sophisticated society. There must be a constantly reassessed order of priorities. For instance, a situation develops from time to rime where if you try to put up new buildings it is not money but whether there are men available to do the job that is the problem.

The Minister of Finance has seen himself as a man who has to arbitrate between the competing sectors of the economy and he has said about university spending that he can foresee the time when he would have to say 'Stop—I cannot finance this.'

Yes, but this is the job that Government does: it orders priorities to determine whether we are going to spend here or whether we are going to spend there.

Do you have the feeling that the time might be coming in the foreseeable future when you would have to say 'Stop, we can't finance any further development'?

I don't foresee it. What do you mean by foresee? If you are talking in terms of the next few years, I certainly don't foresee it, we will continue to make an increasing investment in education. There is no doubt about this.

The Minister of Finance has singled out the university system as a specific area where efficiencies and economics could be made. Do you agree with this assessment?

I have no doubt that there can be greater efficiencies and I've no doubt that there can be economies but don't ask me to identify them. I can't.

But do you see your role as Minister of Education as a man who will be looking for these efficiencies and economies or as a man who will be fighting for . . .

I shall be fighting for both because I've got a very real interest in the well-being of New Zealand. I've got a very real interest in the well-being of the student and the contribution that the university can make to his development and, in turn, the contribution that as an educated person he can make to the development of New Zealand. Do you mean that I must take one of two options? Either I am interested in efficiency and economy—and economy does not necessarily mean that you will reduce your expenditure—or am I interested in promoting education. I am interested in both and I don't see them as being alternatives What I am interested in doing is making sure that those who can use the opportunity to attend a university have that opportunity.

Yet at the same time we have a failure rate which, according to one estimate, costs the country ten million dollars a year. Do you regard this as inevitable waste?

I think that if you are going to have open entry—and I certainly am in favour of an open entry system—then it is inevitable that you will have some who do not make the grade. But this is not something, surely, that Government can change by some magic formula. To a very real extent this depends on the attitude of the student himself. What I see happening is that with the development of other institutions such as technical institutes, an increasing proportion of those who might today go to university will enter other institutions instead. I am sure that this will be to their benefit and to the benefit of society and the economy.

So you don't really see any departure from the open entry system but perhaps we will have institutions which are more suited to the abilities of individuals?

Yes, I think so. There will be courses more suited to the abilities of some individuals who today don't make the grade. Consider tertiary institutions in Britain, for example. They have a low failure rate but it's pretty tough to get into the university—Now, maybe this is the choice but I know which one I opt for.

Open entry?

Yes.

Would you consider increasing bursaries and other means of assistance to students so that we can get the number of graduates we are going to need?

I am always prepared to listen to a proposition on bursaries and they have been reviewed from time to time and will continue to be reviewed. But I am not convinced. I'm not talking about the immediate adequacy of the bursary but just the general argument: I don't know that the level of bursaries determines whether or not people fail. I would not promise that every request for a review of bursaries is going to be met, however.

A survey conducted by NZUSA last year showed that the average fulltime female student earned about $150 less than the average fulltime male student during the summer vacation. On the basis of this, do you think there are grounds to review the bursaries given to female students?

You say this was a new piece of information that was just discovered last year?

The survey was conducted last year.

When I was at university I imagine that exactly the same set of circumstances existed. I imagine that it has existed for many, many years.

Just because the situation has existed in the past does not necessarily mean that it is equitable today. Would you be prepared to consider raising the level of bursaries given to female students?

I have had many propositions put to me from time to time in the other portfolio I have and I can assure you of this—and I don't say it lightly either—that I have always been prepared to consider such proposals. But I add that this does not mean that I give an under-taking that every proposition will be met or that every proposition will have my full support. But I am certainly prepared to thoroughly investigate any proposition.

I would like to turn now to questions of concern to university administrators. The staff-student ratio seems to be a particular matter of concern at the moment. The ratio would be seem to be unfavourable by comparison with Australia and Britain. How do you feel this rather high priority problem should be tackled?

Well, I don't know what the exact figures are but I do know that in Britain, for instance, they are having a close look at their staff-student ratios. In fact, I think that quite recently the proposition has been put to the universities there that they won't be able to continue to afford that level. I am told that staff-student ratios are improving. They have improved and will continue to improve.

Do you think that increased salaries are the answer?

I am certain that salaries are part of the answer.

Would you say that salaries are the highest priority or would you think that there are other means of recruiting staff that could be just as important?

I think there are a whole lot of considerations in this, aren't there?—salaries, conditions, opportunities for research. Obviously money is important, there is no question of this, but I would not care to determine whether one is two points more important than the other and I don't think you would either. What we have done is to meet in full the request of the University Grants Committee. They came up with their proposal for the quinquennial grants and that was met in full. Everything that they asked for was given.

Ten years ago the Parry Commission thought that salaries were a significant factor. In fact, they appear to have rated them rather highly and I believe that a triennial review of salaries is somewhat overdue now.

Well, I don't know if it's overdue. There is to be a review and I cannot forecast at this point what the outcome of that will be. And I don't think you would expect me to.

It was also suggested in the Parry Commission's report that an opportunity to undertake research is one of the attractions to university staff. How do you fed New Zealand universities could provide more opportunities for research?