“You cannot build globally competitive universities while treating them like delivery agencies of government” – UA CEO Luke Sheehy
By STEPHEN MATCHETT
As Compact negotiations begin between universities and new regulator ATEC, Luke Sheehy has questions.
“Who ultimately determines the mission of a university? The university? Or the government of the day?”
In a fighting speech last night the CEO of Universities Australia warned of a “dramatic escalation in regulatory burden, political scrutiny and government intervention.”
And he warned regulator TEQSA’s recent action at ANU had “sent shockwaves through the sector.” The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency moved last month to take control of the recruitment process for the next ANU Chancellor.
“For many in the sector, it felt like a threshold moment,” Mr Sheehy said.
“A moment where the regulator moved beyond questions of compliance and quality assurance, into questions much closer to institutional governance and operational decision-making. “
The intervention also established “bigger questions” for all universities, he told industry lobby, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association.
“What role will TEQSA ultimately play in the future shape of institutions? And what role will it play in mission-based compacts under the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. Will universities genuinely negotiate their missions?”
Mr Sheehy said UA had welcomed ATEC, as a source of long-term thinking on higher education, “frank evidence-based advice to government,” and a “steward to the system.”
But he warned “stewardship cannot become central planning and coordination cannot become regulatory overreach.”
And, on the examples he offered, there is already ample, with “a dramatic escalation in regulatory burden, political scrutiny and government intervention.” Some universities are already navigating more than 300 separate legislative regulatory and reporting obligations,” he said.
And this had happened while governments were asking universities to be more innovative and entrepreneurial.
“You cannot regulate institutions into boldness. You cannot compliance-framework your way to innovation. And you cannot build globally competitive universities while treating them like delivery agencies of government.” he warned.
Mr Sheehy was speaking days after Education Minster Jason Clare announced he had tasked ATEC with advising on how to end the existing the system of “too many broadbased universities” and create specialist institutions aligned with national priorities and community needs.
Comment – Tim Winkler
Universities Australia has the unenviable job of trying to pull together diverse and often competing interests across the sector and present a consolidated, if not consensus position to the public, and particularly to Parliament. Herding cats would be easier.
Last night's speech was a bold and remarkable departure from the constrained language the sector's lobby is accustomed to using, and accurately reflects the high level of concern about the extent to which Education Minister Jason Clare and his team are seeking to seize direct and indirect control over the operations and strategic plans of the nation's tertiary institutions.
Bumbling governance, apathy and inexcusable waste at a number of institutions over the past couple of years have made the Minister's arguments in favour of a quasi-nationalised control of post-secondary education all too easy. The bigger question for the Minister and the nation is whether this massive increase in regulation is the appropriate solution – and whether it will make the tertiary system better.
The media and social media spotlight has played on an embarassing cavalcade of sector issues for at least 18 months, including issues with antisemitism, international enrolments, AI, governance, wage payment, financial management, domestic enrolments … and that is just the key headline acts that have been publicly aired.
But while change in leadership direction, strategy and style at a number of institutions is required, imposing a solution that requires Government appointees to effectively pick policy winners on behalf of institutions, in a sector of extraordinary diversity and complexity appears to be a recipe for failure.
The rush to resolve virtually every issue through increasing intervention of government not only compromises the founding principles of independence of many tertiary institutions, but has already imposed a massive compliance cost across the sector.
The fact that some universities now face 300 separate compliance obligations smacks of overreach, but also imposed inefficiency. Meeting the Government's requirements is now the part or even full-time job of dozens of staff in most institutions, without evidence that this will deliver better sector outcomes, particularly given the lags in provision of data that the Government has notoriously presided over for years.
Any suggestion of Government as partner to the sector is long gone, replaced by a myriad of moves to centralise control amongst the Government and its agencies.
Mr Clare's hopes of being remembered as a Dawkins-esque reformer may be on the wane, dissolving with an implausible stream of assurances that the overlords will know best. Spiralling regulation now constrains revenue through compacts and visa controls, limits ability to develop effective, community-centric strategies and imposes heavy compliance costs across every institution.
Universities Australia have said enough is enough.