Australian universities spar over plans for new oversight body

One of the Australian University Accord’s most radical ideas is also among the most contested, with lobby groups sparring over the primary functions of a proposed tertiary education commission (TEC).

The accord panel is considering whether a TEC should be established to provide “oversight, coordination and expert advice” to the higher education sector, the panel’s interim report says. The commission would “function as a pricing authority” for higher education funding and “negotiate new mission-based compacts” with individual institutions.

Universities Australia (UA), which has not yet decided whether it supports a commission, says such a body “could be useful” if it “has the remit to create funding agreements” and “sets tailored metrics and objectives in collaboration with each university”.

The Group of Eight (Go8) backs a TEC but says it must “have no role in operational matters such as funding allocations or negotiation of institutional compacts. The risk…is that such a body lacks the independence from government to provide evidence-based, long-term advice,” the Go8 argues in its response to the interim report.

The Regional Universities Network encourages “caution” in letting a commission decide how many places should be funded, and where. “There are very few examples where a central control model of place allocation has been successful,” its submission notes.

The Innovative Research Universities group takes a different view. “The UK experience shows the importance of one oversight body for all aspects of a university’s operations,” its submission says. “[The TEC] will need the capabilities to provide oversight of mission-based accord agreements and to evaluate outcomes and impacts across the system.”

The University Chancellors Council, which supports the establishment of a TEC, says the body’s role should include performance monitoring. The Australian Technology Network (ATN), which is undecided, says a TEC’s functions should include holding universities “directly accountable for their research and major research collaboration and translation activities”.

The ATN and Go8 say the commission’s main role would be to roll out the accord’s reforms. “It is…difficult to envisage how the recommendations arising from the accord process can be meaningfully implemented without such a body,” the Go8 observes.

Federal civil service chief and former University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis sees a more fundamental role for a TEC, which he championed in his 2017 book The Australian Idea of a University.

The commission’s primary function would be to set relative funding rates within an overall budget set by the government, he wrote. “An independent commission charged with exclusive authority to distribute all public funding according to transparent operating procedures would stop universities behaving like mendicants, always hassling government for some local advantage.”

While university groups are split on what a commission should do, they are united on what it must avoid. Many submissions warn against extra administrative burdens, duplicated reporting obligations or diminution of institutional autonomy.

A commission’s riding instructions must be “well thought out” to avoid “the real potential for unintended consequences”, UA’s submission stresses. “This will require care and caution in all phases of development.”

RMIT University deputy chancellor Stephen Duckett’s submission highlights the need for “clear thinking about the commission’s role and modus operandi in advance of its establishment”.

UA believes a TEC should be a “medium- rather than short-term” project. The ATN cautions against any long-term aspiration, saying the commission should be a “time-limited” body.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com