Universities unite against Australian tertiary commission plans

Australian universities have comprehensively rejected the proposed model for their new “steward”, telling the federal government to completely rethink its implementation plan for an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (Atec).

In a strongly worded submission to the Department of Education, Universities Australia (UA) asked Canberra to scale back Atec’s proposed workload until the appropriate structure and resources had been put in place.

“Poor policy decisions over the last seven years and pandemic consequences [have] put the future viability of some institutions…at risk,” the submissions says. “Establishing the Atec is a significant and complex undertaking. Due diligence…is required to ensure that the proposals do not exacerbate the difficulties.”

In a consultation paper released in late June, the government flagged an ambitious workload for the commission after its establishment next July.

This included an initial focus on delivering “key” higher education reforms and “tertiary harmonisation” – the integration of higher and vocational education, which has proven elusive for decades.

UA said there was no indication of commensurate resourcing for this work beyond funding for four commissioners, three of them part-time. “Atec [should] be given sufficient resources to perform its functions,” the submission says. “In the initial stages, its functions should be matched to the resources the government is prepared to allocate to it.”

The consultation paper also proposes that the commission be housed within the department to “minimise establishment and operating costs”. The department’s secretary would be the commission’s “accountable authority”, with Atec’s outcomes and financial accounts detailed in the department’s annual report.

This would effectively turn the commission into a vassal of the Department of Education, UA’s submission protests. “Atec staff [would be] officers of the department [with] the secretary responsible for…use and management of relevant public resources and outcomes.”

Independence is likely to prove a key battleground in the commission’s development, as universities strive to preserve their autonomy. With the commission taking a role in the “managed growth” of higher education, the government will be keen to avoid the funding blowout that accompanied the 2012 removal of caps on domestic undergraduate places, when teaching grants and related scholarships increased by more than one-third – costing the Treasury an extra A$1.6 billion (£815 million) annually – in just three years.

UA says the government should go back to the drawing board, submitting a “revised proposal” for Atec as an “independent authority, separate from the Department of Education”. The commission’s development should be phased “to give it maximum chance of succeeding”, and it should be able to recruit experts from the sector – notwithstanding the consultation paper’s insistence that appointees must “retain sufficient distance from narrow sectoral views”.

UA’s stance has fuelled accord in a sector not noted for its unity. Harlene Hayne, chair of the Australian Technology Network (ATN), said the sector had “a strongly aligned view” on Atec. “I stand with my colleagues across the sector who have said firmly that we need to take the time to get this right,” she said.

ATN executive director Ant Bagshaw said the sector sometimes seemed “riven” with “tedious” factional infighting. “Unifying around a call for a better approach to policymaking serves us well, and we hope that this is heard in Canberra,” he said.

The Regional Universities Network (RUN) said the proposal lacked “true independence” and the Australian Research Council – recently granted greater autonomy by the government – should serve as a “model” for the new commission.

RUN bristled at the discussion paper’s insistence that people with recent higher education roles should be barred from recruitment as commissioners. “Atec…must be led by those who have a lived experience, understanding and knowledge of the tertiary education sector,” RUN's submission says. “Contemporary knowledge and a history of working in the sector would [not] preclude a commissioner from having a national interest view.”

The Innovative Research Universities (IRU) says the proposed model would not deliver the independence or capability the commission would need to perform its role. “Government [should] further develop the model in consultation with the sector and allocate dedicated funding through the 2024-25 mid-year budget process to ensure that the Atec is set up for success,” IRU’s submission says.

The Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (Iteca) says the government proposed tackling longstanding bureaucratic complexities “by creating a larger and potentially more invasive bureaucratic entity with an even broader remit”.

In a letter to the department’s deputy secretary, Ben Rimmer, Iteca chief executive Troy Williams says the proposal duplicated functions of forecasting body Jobs and Skills Australia while glossing over the commission’s role in overseeing international education.

Mr Williams says the commission envisaged by the government offered an “illusion of independence” and risked “exacerbating rather than ameliorating existing challenges”.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com