A special government briefing in Canberra on Tuesday and Wednesday — on crucial legislation covering the operations of post-secondary education institutions across the country — turned out to be a debacle, Crikey understands. Representatives from the main education organisations, including the universities, TAFE colleges and the private sector, were appalled at the presentations made by Education Department bureaucrats.
Although those selected to attend the confidential briefing were told they would have plenty of time to study the draft legislation, due to be presented to Parliament in 10 days, they did not receive the 400-page document until last Friday and were stunned by its punitive tone. Those present were in agreement the legislation should not be tabled but subject to a substantial rewrite and this time with the sector involved in a series of consultations.
University representatives could not believe their eyes when they saw one section stating the federal act will override state legislation and that a university could be deregistered, despite being established by a state parliament, with the Commonwealth immune from any state action.
“The whole event was terrible, I’ve never seen anything so unprofessional and undemocratic,” said one of those present. “One of the key issues was that the legislation does not articulate with the state acts that establish universities or the colleges. They didn’t even have a lawyer present who could explain how the federal and state acts would relate to each other.”
The legislation will establish a new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to replace the existing Australian Universities Quality Agency, which, while it conducts regular audits of all higher education institutions and releases public reports on its findings, lacks any power to oblige institutions to adopt its recommendations.
The Group of Eight research intensive universities, in particular, is strongly opposed to what it says will be a highly intrusive new system — although just how intrusive the group did not realise until this week. Vice-chancellor concerns were raised by the lack of debate and consultation surrounding the drafting of the legislation and these were hardly eased when the briefing was called with key players being excluded. Their worst fears will be confirmed when they see reports of what happened on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Chair of the Go8, Professor Alan Robson, said before this week’s briefing that the legislation establishing the new tertiary education regulator had been drafted “in a closed manner with rather limited consultation with universities and other interest groups”.
“There are basic policy purposes and fundamental issues about university autonomy which have not been discussed,” Robson said. “It would appear as though the government is trying to ram this legislation through even though Labor was committed to evidence-based policy formulation and a respect for university autonomy, academic freedom and mission differences among institutions in its pre-election statements in 2007 and 2010.”
Robson, who heads the University of Western Australia, said “the tightly balanced federal parliament” should demand higher standards of the government’s policy process. He said universities had yet to see Labor’s pre-election commitments reflected in government practices and there had been “a disconcerting lack of transparency in the public policy processes” relating to higher education standards and quality.
Er, if you’re setting up a national standards body with actual bite then surely it must be able to, in the worst case, ‘deregister’ a university.
This article sounds like it listened to the ‘top end’ of the higher education sector a little too much. I’d be more interested in what the mid-tier or lower-tier institutions think than what a very self-interested organisation like UWA would think – particularly as the sandstone universities, presumably, are not going to be the ones primarily impacted by a national standards body, at least if you believe their own rhetoric about how wonderful they are.
Also, was there no statement from the Department of Education or the minister at all? You didn’t even say that you tried to contact them with the usual ‘no response by deadline’.
Please, somebody, remind me again, because I seem to have forgotten.
Question 1. 100 Marks. What is the business of being a university? Answers to this question beyond 200 words will be marked on the content of the first 200 words only.
Question 2. 100 Marks. What is the ideal funding mechanism for universities? TAFE? Adult learning other than the TAFE/Uni? Why? Cite references and analyse from academic, commercial, comparative and sociological perspectives, including higher education in at least one Western democracy and one Asian emerging democracy. Answers to this question beyond 200 words will be marked on the content of the first 200 words only.
Question 3. On a blank A4 sheet of paper, draw a rational management tree describing the interaction and powers, duties and responsibilities including social responsibilities of the following organisations and office-holders:
Australian Government, Cabinet, Minister(s).
State and Federal Constitutions
Governor-General.
Federal Government Departments.
Ministerial Advisors.
The Federal Budget Process and outcomes.
State and territory Government, Cabinet and Minister(s).
State Governors and Territry Administrators.
State Department(s) including of Education, Higher Education and Highest Education.
Consultants, advisors and sundry paid lackies.
The Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee.
The Group of 8 Universities and any representative committee thereof. Or, in WA’s case, any unrepresentative representative – they always were a little different.
Affected unons, with particular reference to the Felt Hatters’ Association.
Academic staff, research staff, administrative staff and actual students need not appear on your submission – they will and must continue to do whatever they are told, including to make only token noises and certainly no threats.
The Campus Security Staff, in whom all day-to-day authority resides.
Professional organisations NB the AMA is not, for the purposes of this question, the most effective and lucrative trade union in Australia – it is a Professional Organisation and is thus above reproach, as also medical fraternities representing individual sub-classes of closed shop and insular backwards looking medical practitioners. All other Professional Organisations may be omitted without penalty, because they can only gaze in wonderment at the achievements of their medical counterparts and hope to catch some crumbs from their table.
Gatekeepers for industry; and
Associated shills.
In 15,000 words or more, presented double-spaced and with 40mm margins in Times Roman 12 Point Font, printed in black on 120gsm A4 paper, vellum bound and gold blocked, provide an explanation and critique of the primary linkages shown in the Rational Management Tree. Printing on the obverse of any sheet of paper, or failure to comply fully with the Rules of the Academic Senate in relation to the submission of Theses, Papers and Publications, will result in a 10 mark penalty and disqualification for any mark rating above a mere Distinction.
Marks: Question 3 has potentially infinite marks, depending upon its worth in the current funding and existential sh_t fights between G8 universities and sundry others Vs Commonwealth Bureaucrats. All responses achieving an HD rating shall be awarded PhD (Hon) Degree in Letters at the forthcoming Graduation Ceremony.
Special question (Additional 10 marks possible). Explain by diagram only the difference betwen a proctor and a proctologist.
I agree with Jackol.
Some of the critics of the Australian Government’s establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency forget that the Government is seeking to protect universities as well as students from the consequences of a university’s substantial quality failure.
As we have seen in vocational education and training, such substantial failures of quality can undermine confidence in the whole sector, notwithstanding that most institutions are quite different from the failed institution.
We also know that some universities’ practices risk quality failures.
Gavin, how do you draw the line on quality? How do you ensure it’s poor quality education not the voicing of “unpopular opinions” that draws the attention of the regulator? This is a very dangerous step towards political control of universities. THIS government might not want to exert such influence – but the last one certainly would have – as we saw in the Ministerial interference with ARC grants.
There is simply no comparison between the “quality failures” of externally accredited VET institutions, which have mostly affected private, for-profit organisations, and those of universities, which are self-accrediting, not-for-profit organisations (although their management often ACT as if they are for-profit corporations – we just call it “surplus” rather than profit, and it stays with the institution rather than paying dividends or enriching its owners). Very different markets, regulatory arrangements, accreditation arrangements AND consequences. Very different “businesses”, in fact. To paraphrase whoever it was who said it about public broadcasting: public (and other not-for-profit) education is in the business of delivering education to students; private (for-profit) education is in the business of delivering students to the owners.
The Federal Department clearly believes that they don’t have to articulate with State laws since they intend to use the corporations power to override them.
Interesting times for academic freedom and independence.
Some universities get their degrees offered by private for profit providers from teaching shop fronts in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.
All Australian universities award at least 2 masters degrees for only 1 year’s equivalent full time study, which substantially breaches the current Australian qualifications framework which requires masters to be 2 years after a 3-year undergraduate degree.
Universities shouldn’t be able to continue these and other substantial quality failures by hiding behind an extravagant claim to institutional autonomy.
The Australian Government proposes that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency be established as a statutory corporation governed by commissioners independent of government. At least on its face, that seems to me to be a more than adequate protection against ideological surveillance of higher education institutions.