(Question No. 3483)
Senator Carr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Monday, 5 March 2001:
With reference to Greenwich University: Can the Minister ensure that the department provide a detailed response to all the allegations raised by Dr John Walsh of Brannagh in an article in the Campus Review of 2 March 2001:
Senator Ellison —The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
Allegations raised in the Campus Review Article of 2 March 2001 are shown in italics. The Departmental response is provided following each allegation.
CR: One might wonder why no report was tendered. One might wonder at the peculiar timing, and the fact that no advice was given either to Greenwich University or to the Norfolk Island Government.
The Review Committee met on 6 December 2000 to discuss the final report and recommendations. The report was presented to the Minister on 7 December and he made a statement in the house that day.
CR: Greenwich itself had difficulty in obtaining a copy of the report, and had to make an application under the Freedom of Information Act. As at the date of writing neither the University nor the Norfolk Island Government has been able to get a copy of the full and complete report. The University, after a number of repeated requests, obtained the first 33 pages plus two abbreviated appendices. The author or authors are not identified!”
The Minister wrote to his MCEETYA colleagues advising that he accepted the recommendations of the committee and asking for their views. He requested a response by 15 December 2000 so the matter could be finalised quickly. There was no disagreement from any of the States and Territories and the Minister signed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Greenwich University on 18 December 2000 advising that a copy of the report was attached (this was sent electronically on 20 December and receipt of the report was acknowledged on 21 December 2000).
On this occasion only the main body of the report was sent as the appendices were identical to those of the draft report with the exception of the Greenwich University response to the draft report and comments on the response that were prepared by the secretariat for the benefit of the committee.
Greenwich wrote on 5 January 2001 (letter received 15 January) asking for a complete copy and received an immediate reply to the effect that:
“The appendices to the report were not included with the copy of the report that was emailed to you because all items with the exception of Greenwich University's response to the draft (which is your document) and the Secretariat's comments on that response are identical to the draft report. I have sent these two appendices to you by Australia Post.
Sending another copy of the other appendices seemed to be an unnecessary duplication, however these can be provided if required. Please let me know if you require another copy of the other appendices.”
As the report is the report of the Committee and membership of the Committee is included at Appendix 1, it does not seem necessary to designate authors.
CR: The 520 page response the university made to the draft report in August last year has been doctored and most of the responses have been left out. The original submission of 614 pages from the university is also now not available from DETYA, as are other relevant documents.
The response of Greenwich University to the draft consisted of comments plus copies of documentation from the original self-assessment document. Both the comments and the documentation were inserted into the text throughout the draft report. Greenwich University responded in this way both to the main body of the draft report and to each of the assessment panel reports and the report of the Financial Assessment. Many of the comments and much of the documentation was duplicated between the response to the assessment reports and the relevant sections of the main body of the report.
The assessment reports were commissioned by the committee to inform its decision about the University's academic and financial standards. Copies were included with the draft report in line with natural justice requirements so the University had an opportunity to reply. The appendix attached to the final report was limited to the Greenwich comments pertaining to the main body of the report. There was some concern about including even this much of the response since Greenwich University mentions several people by name and attributes remarks to the Deloitte's representative that are considered by that person to be potentially libellous. Greenwich University's response to the assessment reports have been left out (although the comments on each of the relevant sections in the main report are included) and the comments have been isolated from the text of the draft report however they have not been `doctored' in any way.
The report of the financial assessment was not included in the final report as it was marked “Commercial in Confidence” by Deloitte, Touche, Tomatsu and the salient feature, stated in the main body of the report was that, “Based on the limited information provided to date, Deloitte are not able to form or offer an opinion regarding the financial position or the economic viability of Greenwich.” The financial assessment was carried out in March 2000. The draft report was sent to the University for comment in July 2000 and the final report was completed in December 2000. Greenwich University did not provide any additional documentation over this nine month period.
The reference to the original submission is not clear but we are unaware of any request to have access to this information.
CR: No application has ever been made by Greenwich for listing on the AQF Register.
The application for listing on the AQF was made by the Norfolk Island Government, which has observer status on Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).
CR: The AQF and MCEETYA advised Greenwich that as soon as the legislation was enacted (the Greenwich University Act) and the university commenced operating on Norfolk Island, it would be listed automatically on the AQF list, as all universities established pursuant to state or territory legislation were automatically placed on the Register.
We have no information that would indicate any such advice was given. In November 1998 the Department of Transport and Regional Services sought confirmation from Dr Walsh that he wanted to proceed with the Greenwich University relocation to Norfolk Island given that the business would face restrictions if conducting business on the mainland using the word “University” as part of its name.
The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs was never consulted about the proposed establishment of a university on Norfolk Island or given an opportunity to comment on the legislation before the Act was passed.
Greenwich University was never accredited in the USA and anyone with any knowledge of recognition or accreditation matters, who might have been consulted prior to the move to Norfolk Island would have considered this to be a matter of considerable concern.
CR: Another peculiarity is the strange wording, which says Greenwich did not “meet the standards expected of Australian universities”, rather than the standards existing as such. The word “expected” rather than actual or extant is somewhat odd.
Recognition and accreditation of higher education institutions and courses is a matter for State and Territory higher education authorities in Australia. These authorities have a wealth of experience and expertise in this area and were, therefore, commissioned to undertake assessment of three discipline areas. Three different States were asked to undertake the assessment because this reduced any risk of bias and also spread the cost as they waived the normal assessment fee. The panels worked independently but all three found that Greenwich would not be accredited in their respective States. The following quotes from the panel reports illustrate the concerns:
“The (Theology) Panel was also of the opinion that the coursework presented to it for evaluation was not of equivalent quality to that offered by other Australian universities at postgraduate level. The Panel found that most of the units it examined were more typical of introductory undergraduate studies than coursework in postgraduate programs in Australian universities. The Panel also found no evidence that the coursework available to students in the School of Theology would prepare students adequately to write a thesis at Master's or PhD level according to Australian university standards.”
“The (Business) panel's view was that some of the course content is more appropriate to `bridging type' courses rather than as credit towards a post graduate qualification. This was a concern in relation to the standard of the proposed course compared to relevant courses offered by Australian universities.”
“It is the view of the panel that the student work submitted by Greenwich as suitable examples of the standard of work were not of the appropriate standard. Over the period 1996 to 1998, the supplementary material identified one doctorate and three masters completions in Computing and four doctorate and five masters completions in Business. The PhD research theses were essentially descriptive reports, lacked analytical content and did not contribute to the body of knowledge in the academic area.”
“The (health sciences) panel considered the depth of the course work components inappropriate to Nursing studies, post graduate studies in Health Science and Psychology in Australian universities.”
The committee that visited Norfolk Island was given an opportunity to examine some PhD theses submitted by students of Greenwich University (Hawaii) and found that the standard of scholarship was well below what would be acceptable in other Australian universities. A lengthy examination of these documents was not required in order to make this assessment.
CR: When are all the other universities to be so reviewed? The other question is why all universities are not taken off the AQF list until such time as their reviews are complete.
The fundamental difference between Greenwich University and other Australian universities is that the Greenwich University Act was passed by the Norfolk Island Government without the university undergoing any assessment or accreditation process. This matter was not addressed directly by either the Norfolk Island Government or Greenwich University until the Norfolk Island Government responded to the draft report. In his response, Mr George Smith stated: “The Norfolk Island Government (NIG) recognises that the matter of accreditation is basically a matter between Greenwich University and the Australian accreditation authorities and whilst the NIG has been supportive of the development of a Norfolk Island University and will continue to do so the NIG has never purported to be an accrediting authority.”
This explains why it was necessary to establish a review of Greenwich University. Other universities are listed on the AQF because they successfully sought accreditation through a recognised higher education authority. Greenwich did not seek accreditation prior to the request for listing on the AQF registers and the review, which was comparable to an accreditation process, concluded that its standards were not high enough to warrant listing on the AQF registers.
CR: A difficulty faced by those who take only a superficial look at Greenwich is that we are different. Our method of operation is different, out standards are different (but not inferior in any way), our staff are different and our faculty are certainly very different.
The Review Committee spent several meetings drafting the review criteria, which were based on criteria used by State and Territory recognition and accreditation authorities. The committee was very aware of the differences in approach between a traditional university and a university operating totally in the distance education mode and it put considerable effort into accommodating these differences. Greenwich was consulted at every stage of the process including the Review Criteria and membership of the assessment panels. The review was a rigorous process involving authorities from three States and Territories as well as the financial consultant and the review committee. This could hardly be considered a `superficial look'.
CR: What does the University mean when it says that Australia is denying it the avenues of applying for listing on a UNESCO register and complicating its request for listing with the Association of Commonwealth Universities?
Both these registers are based on universities that have been accredited by recognised accreditation authorities in the home country. In the case of Australia, they are based on the AQF registers.
CR: The review team (of four) visited the university for less than four hours. During that time they spent less than 10 minutes flicking through some old theses from the Hilo office. They did not speak to one student, one graduate or one faculty member.
The Committee had received the reports of the three assessment panels and the financial report before it visited Norfolk Island. It used this visit to become familiar with the administrative structure and facilities on Norfolk Island. An agenda for the visit was sent to the University in advance of the visit and the University could have used the opportunity to present its case. The theses given to the committee were chosen by the University. While the review committee did not speak with anyone other than staff on Norfolk Island, the theology panel interviewed three graduates nominated by the University by teleconference.
CR: Yet only two weeks after the Norfolk Island Act was proclaimed in the Government Gazette a senior bureaucrat in DETYA was denying the very existence of the legislation and even had a message placed on the world wide web to that effect.
In January 1999 a senior member of DETYA responded to a piece of correspondence asking about Greenwich University with the comment that “Greenwich University is neither part of the publicly funded sector nor recognised as a private sector university. The only privately funded universities are Bond University and the University of Notre Dame in Fremantle, Perth. There are a number of non-university higher education institutions which offer courses which are accredited by the relevant State/Commonwealth authority. I understand that the Commonwealth of Australia is responsible for higher education in Norfolk Island. As far as I know, `Greenwich University' has not been recognised by the Commonwealth of Australia as an institution offering higher education courses”
I received the following email. My reply is the part in italics.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:00:04 EST
Subject: Re Greenwich University
Dear Sir: I am a former student of Greenwich University who obtained both bachelors and an MBA from that institution before registering. I took three years to complete my Ph.D and my dissertation was seen by another Univeristy to which I applied for a teaching position and I was told that the standard of my work was above that which was required for a degree.
Did you get the job?
Most of the faculty have degrees from fully accredited universities, and Dr John Bear was of Bears Guide, and an expert in fraudulent diploma mills certified this as a legitmate unveristy in his "Guide to Non-Traditional Degrees" published by Ten Speed Press. He also owned a share in the University before selling that share to Dr Brannagh.
The standard of the courses are not easy and there are other institutions such as St Clements which is definately a diploma mill, which operates on the mainland which the Australian Government has turned a blind eye too.
The only St Clements University I can find has an address in the Turks & Caicos Islands, British West Indies. This is a very long way from the mainland of Australia.
The government of Australia intends to open its own virtual university and Greenwich is an obstacle to that university.
The government of Australia does not run universities, and even if it did Greenwich would not be an "obstacle". Several real universities in Australia already run programs which can be taken completely online, except that attendance at some physical location may be required for some examinations.
The Dean of Faculty for the school of business for example has a doctorate from Durham university, and other institutions and has successfully taught at Canadian Universities and is listed in Canada's whos who. I am quite dubious about the story which you have written as Dr Brannagh and his partner do not have a university which issues medical degrees. If you examined the web site you would see that the only one is one to do with medical law .
The word "medical" appears nowhere in anything I have written or quoted about Greenwich "University".
Greenwich University does not print degrees for a fee, course work has to be undertaken by a qualified mentor and I would appreciate if you would read Bears Guide both past and present before slandering this school.
I don't see Greenwich listed on the Bears Guide web site, although I do see eight real universities in Australia.
George Shippey Ph.D
