University governance – what a state the sector is in

I have just recorded a podcast episode sharing a summary of my reflections on the 167 public submissions to the Senate Standing Committee Inquiry into the Quality of Governance at Australian Higher Education Providers.

For those of you who aren’t podcast listeners – this is a much shorter summary of the key issues raised in the various submissions. (To listen to the podcast episode where I unpack the issues below in much greater detail – you can listen online or find the episode in your favourite podcast feed).

Firstly let me start with what was so noticeable in the many, many submissions from individual academics and various unions and associations – the emotional toll felt by so many working in the sector is deeply concerning. That so many people put their names to submissions and talked about what they are observing in their workplaces, and the impact on them and their colleagues was powerful and moving.

What was even more concerning was the disconnect in tone between the submissions made by so many university leaders and their peak bodies, and the perspectives of their staff.

This dissonance reveals a governance system that appears disconnected from the lived experiences and concerns of university employees – as so many of the submissions pointed out.

The sector’s ongoing wage underpayment scandal was an issue that some universities addressed transparently in their submissions, while others failed to acknowledge it altogether.

Even more surprisingly, some universities (including some with wage underpayments affecting thousands of staff and costing millions of dollars) chose not to even make a submission to the inquiry.

With the recent release of the Committee’s interim report indicating the Committee’s support for continuing the inquiry after the election, I wonder what Senators (as well as staff, students and the broader public) will think of university leaders choosing to ignore an inquiry into their institution’s governance?

I don’t think it will only be these universities which will be in the spotlight if/when the Senate Committee’s hearings resume. The contrasting tones of submissions from Universities Australia and the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) was significant. If you’re not aware (as I have to admit I really wasn’t) Universities Australia – despite representing university Vice Chancellors – is not able to comment on IR and HR issues. That’s the role of AHEIA – also owned and funded by (most but not all) publicly-funded universities.

While University Australia’s submission was firm but respectful in tone, AHEIA took a different approach, dismissing criticism and downplaying systemic problems in the sector such as wage underpayments.

AHEIA even went as far as to start their submission by describing it as “Senator Tony Sheldon Inquiry into University Governance” as if Senator Sheldon is the only Senator concerned with universities’ IR, HR and governance practices. AHEIA went on to close their submission by pushing back on the use of consultants by universities – saying that “unlike government” universities use consultants sparingly – which seems to ignore the incredible range of expertise within universities on almost every topic under the sun, by nature of the research their academics do, unlike the much more narrow expertise available within government agencies.[1]

The submission from the University Chancellors Council took a more reflective tone, acknowledging failures and emphasising continuous improvement. Meanwhile, the peak body for private providers (IHEA) noted the inquiry’s public-university focus despite the name of the inquiry having the broader emphasis on higher education (and at this point I should note that the NTEU reports only one private provider has had a wage underpayment issue).

One of the strongest individual university submissions was from Charles Sturt University – which I have highlighted previously.

The submissions from academic staff, unions, and associations painted a bleak picture of governance and the state of the workplace in many universities —describing psychological distress, loss of collegial governance, and increasing corporatisation.

Both the Stretton Health Equity Centre at the University of Adelaide and the Psychosocial Safety Climate Global Observatory at the University of South Australia presented research on poor psychosocial safety in Australian universities compared to the experiences of workers in other sectors. Their research underlined the credibility of the experiences shared by so many current and former university staff in their individual submissions.

Amongst the common concerns of individual staff (and many other organisations and associations) was the growing concentration of power among a narrow set of executive leaders in most universities, the remuneration levels of senior executives, and the lack of accountability of university councils.

There were essentially two approaches suggested in the various submissions to address university councils’ lack of accountability:

1. reforms to introduce/reintroduce more democratic mechanisms into university governance eg elections for leadership roles, greater transparency in decision-making, and/or more academic representation on university councils, and
2. for universities to adopt governance mechanisms akin to those of ASX-listed companies. Some proposed introducing annual general meetings where university leadership would be held directly accountable to staff and students, similar to the accountability boards have to shareholders in public companies. This would include the potential power of veto on executive remuneration and greater involvement in council decisions — countering the current system where governing councils are largely self-regulating and lack external oversight.

Submissions from student associations tended to focus on the lack of student voices in university governance arrangements. Some submissions also focussed on how they thought the funding for student associations from the Student Services and Amenities Fee shuld be distributed.

In examining the views of external stakeholders, I was surprised that only Victoria and the ACT governments made submissions to the inquiry. The Fair Work Ombudsman’s submission, despite acknowledging the work universities have done so far, was explicit that much more is needed from the university sector, including the need for cultural change in the sector (a marked contrast to the submission made by AHEIA). TEQSA argued that with respect to some of the issues of concern to the Senate Committee, it had limited enforcement powers and therefore it suggested changes to its legislation.

There is a minor error in the Department of Education’s submission which probably won’t mean much in the overall scheme of the Senate Committee’s work but, if the Committee was to recommend changes to those elements of university governance currently embedded in State-Territory legislation then it could be a problem.

The Australia Institute’s submission was particularly compelling given they could point to their institutional history on raising concerns about university governance (pointing to a submission they made on this issue from 2001 which still resonates today).

And finally in their balanced, thoughtful submission, the Australian Council of Deans of Science stated that “across our membership of 36 universities in Australia, there is a perception that there are varying degrees of quality in the way that governing bodies work.”

“As we ascend the hierarchy of decision making in universities, sometimes academic considerations become less and less well heard. We need to ensure that there is appropriate academic input into the decision making by the governing body… In some examples of university governance, there are good mechanisms for involvement, engagement or scrutiny by staff and students.”

The Senate would do well to heed this advice from the Deans of Science.

I commend the Senate for calling this inquiry, and hope Senators will reach concrete recommendations which will materially improve the engagement of academics, professional staff and students in their university’s future decision making.

And it can then be left to the Expert Council on University Governance to oversee the successful implementation of the Senate’s recommendations.

———————————

[1] And even with that caveat, about the narrower expertise within government, as a consultant I have still been very pleased to see efforts by the government and Senators to reduce the public sector’s reliance on external consultants and rebuild greater expertise within the public service.