ATEC started throwing its weight around way before establishing legislation was passed.
Documents tabled in Senate Estimates last week demonstrate how quickly the Commission got into the habit of command.
Back in December, the Interim version of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission was writing to universities with instructions on changes to make, directing them to respond on an “if not why not” basis.
The learned Andrew Norton was on to this first, FOI-ing correspondence from ATEC to Vice-Chancellors on what they would have to do to receive funds to compensate for reducing over-enrolments. It was not “proper process” he argued “the rule of law is being replaced with rule by email.”
And while Professor Norton did not state such, if it sets a precedent for how ATEC will operate, universities will have to adapt to being bossed about.
ATEC’s Student Profiles Branch wrote to UNSW VC Attila Brungs, for example, just before Christmas reminding him that the university “agreed to pursue a more modest growth strategy” but was over-enrolled. As such, it qualified for $4.7m in help.
There were, however, conditions on the cash, one being to “confirm early adoption” of the education MINCO’s agreement on all-university council governance principles, ahead of changes being incorporated in the TEQSA-enforced standards framework. (When it happens, they will require publication of VC pay/consultancies, use of consultants and decisions taken).
Plus, UNSW had to outline in 750 words max, “how your university has begun to give effect to the principles and your estimated time-frame to implement, on an ‘if not, why not?’ basis. That is, to the full extent that your university is able, with clear explanation where there is a reason that full implementation is not possible and how the intent of the Principle is being addressed instead.”
And what, pray, does any of it to have to do with the funding on offer for teaching? “Good governance is essential to providing a good learning environment for your Commonwealth supported students,” ATEC stated.
Or to industrial relations? “Government expects the additional financial support will reduce the need for major restructures, redundancies or course closures during the transition,” (to the new ATEC organised CSP funding model).
If this is the shape of things to come, it may not be exactly what advocates of ATEC hoped for; a “steward” for the HE system that would protect it from politics.
Sound familiar? It will to those who remember how TEQSA over-did the intervention when first established. In 2013 Valerie Braithwaite and Kwong Lee Dow reviewed the agency for the feds, with recommendations that set it up for survival. Buried in their report was a warning that might apply to ATEC.
“Command and control breaks down as a regulatory process if the regulatee’s knowledge and cooperation is needed to solve the problem and if the regulator is not always there to direct the activities of the regulatee. The system also breaks down if the regulator does not have the respect and confidence of regulatees and gaming is more likely. Command and control suffers the additional disadvantage of being a very expensive method of regulation because it depends on the regulator being available to give instructions, monitor responses and judge the best response.”
Plus ça change …