ACDS submission – review of quality governance at Australian higher education providers

The Australian Council of Deans of Science Inc. (ACDS) made a submission to the review of the quality of governance at Australian higher education providers. The ACDS submission focused on the term of reference 1a: “The composition of providers’ governing bodies and the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of their functions and processes, including in relation to expenditure, risk management and conflicts of interest“

The key message from the ACDS is that it is important that TEQSA measures are adequate to ensure the quality of university governance across the entire Australian higher education system. By ensuring a balanced composition of experience on governing bodies, enhancing transparency through better communication and engagement, clarifying accountability mechanisms and fostering effective decision-making processes, the ACDS believes that these improvements will lead to a stronger and more positive higher education system. This, in turn, will enable Deans of Science to better lead and manage their faculties and colleges, ultimately benefiting Australia’s future workforce and research needs.

1. Composition

• 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. It is important to ensure that the governing body has an appropriate balance of people with genuine academic experience and people with industry, business, community and government experience.
• Of the members of a governing body with academic backgrounds, some (but not all) should be representatives from the institution concerned.

We recommend the importance of ensuring a balanced composition of experience on governing bodies.

2. Transparency

• As Executive Deans and Pro Vice Chancellors, we recognise that universities and the colleges and faculties that we look after are billion dollar industries. They require good financial leadership and stewardship. But every decision we make needs to have a good understanding of the academic consequences for our students, our staff and other stakeholders, balanced by the interests of the whole institution at heart.
• In contemporary universities, relationships between the executive leadership and the governing bodies are much more complex than they were twenty years ago. This is driven by a need to be cognisant of both financial and academic imperatives.
• 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. Other factors may well turn out to be more significant, but it is important that opportunities exist and are encouraged for meaningful input from students and staff.
• In some examples of university governance, there are good mechanisms for involvement, engagement or scrutiny by staff and students. This can occur through effective ongoing engagement of the executive leadership with the governing body, or governing bodies can invite groups of staff to present on various issues.

We recommend the importance of enhancing transparency through better communication and engagement.

3. Accountability

• Although most universities operate under state acts of parliament, the mix of state and federal responsibilities means that sometimes the line of oversight is unclear. When a university is functioning well this lack of clarity is not a problem. But when questions arise about university performance it is not obvious who to turn to.
• As Deans of Science, we recognise the financial difficulties of running expensive science programs and the hard decisions that need to be made about these programs. But there appears to be no national oversight that protects and advances the national interest. There is limited coordinated oversight across Australia’s governing bodies that monitors the impacts of individual institutional decisions on national priorities, preparedness for future threats and base-load sovereign capability.

We recommend that there be greater coordinated oversight of university governing bodies.

4. Effectiveness

• As stated above, there seems to be variation in the effectiveness of governing bodies across our member universities. Good examples seem to be when there are opportunities for genuine academic input into decisions made by the governing bodies and when the members of those governing bodies are engaged with university stakeholders. However, we recognise that these perceptions need to be measured against clear evidence.
• To help improve public confidence in universities, we recommend the importance of setting nation-wide clear, measurable goals for governing bodies to help in assessing their performance and effectiveness with specific reference to the Australian higher education system.

The overarching context for this review is whether the powers available to TEQSA are adequate for it to monitor and improve governance in universities. While the ACDS is not in a position to advise about these powers, we do feel that an improvement in the composition, transparency, accountability and effectiveness of university governing bodies will lead to a stronger and more positive higher education system. As stated at the beginning, this in turn will help our Deans of Science to lead and manage their entities in the best way possible to deliver the future workforce and research needs for Australia.