The Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee final report on provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (Tas) touches - gingerly - on systemic problems in institutional governance that are evident in other Australian universities.
The Committee made an overarching recommendation -
As a priority, the Government conduct a comprehensive review of the University of Tasmania Act 1992, including matters specified in recommendations in this report, and promptly legislate the results of that review.
It goes on to make 19 recommendations:
1. The Act be amended to include a preamble.
2. The Act be amended to provide for casual staff to be included in the constitution of the University.
3. Section 6 of the Act be reviewed and amended to ensure contemporary and appropriate functions are included.
4. Consider a mechanism to assess the performance of the University against the functions in Section 6 of the Act.
5. The Act be amended to establish restrictions or prohibitions on the disposal or long-term lease of land that has been granted to the University by the Crown, land purchased with public money, or Crown land.
6. The Act be amended to provide for the constitution of the University Council to include a minimum of two student members, with at least one elected from the student body.
7. The Act be amended to provide for the constitution of the University Council to include a minimum of two members of the academic staff elected by the academic staff.
8. The Act be amended to provide for the constitution of the University Council to include a minimum of two members of the professional staff elected by the professional staff.
9. The Act be amended to ensure there is more balance between the number of appointed and elected members on the University Council.
10. The Act be amended to clarify the purpose and function of Ministerial appointments to the University Council.
11. The Act be amended to ensure when considering the best interests of the University, University Council must explicitly include consideration of the University’s obligations to the Tasmanian community.
12. The Act be amended to prescribe key requirements for the constitution and method of appointment of the Academic Senate, to ensure a higher proportion of academic representatives rather than managerial appointments and fewer ex officio appointments.
13. The Act be amended to prescribe the functions of the Academic Senate to include a determinative role on core academic matters.
14. Amend the Act in relation to annual reporting by the University, including: a. more specific detail on what the Annual Report is required to contain in relation to income and expenditure; b. a requirement to report on the delivery of the functions of the University; c. a requirement to include detail of all salaries, remuneration and fringe benefits for executive management roles at the University; and d. a requirement for more timely tabling of the University’s annual report in Parliament.
15. In addition to the Annual Report, include a requirement in the Act for the University to produce: a. an annual corporate plan to be published at the beginning of the year; and b. an annual Environment, Society and Governance (ESG) report.
16. Review Section 7(2) of the Act to retain Treasurer’s approval for University borrowings and ensure it reflects contemporary borrowing and borrowing-like arrangements.
17. Consider formalising processes for regular Parliamentary scrutiny of the University, including: a. The Annual Report b. The annual corporate plan c. Major infrastructure projects
18. The Act be amended to include a requirement to protect and promote academic freedom.
19. The Joint Standing Committee on Integrity consider an inquiry into the performance of the Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman in relation to complaints regarding the University of Tasmania.
The recommendations reflect a range of findings -
1. The original University of Tasmania Act 1889 contained a preamble which was removed in 1951.
2. There is broad support for reinstating a preamble in the Act.
3. The Dawkins reforms of the 1980s, and various reforms since, have resulted in significant changes to funding models, leading to corporatisation of the Australian higher education system.
4. With increased corporatisation, it is important universities achieve an appropriate balance between being a public institution and generating funds. There is a need for greater independent scrutiny, transparency and accountability to ensure this balance is being achieved.
5. Concern was expressed that the University appears to prioritise commercial over community interests in its core functions, with a significant focus on corporatisation, which undermines the University’s core role and identity.
6. The University considers the current Act constitutes its membership as the active, living, collegial community engaged in the University's tasks of learning, teaching and research. The University is to serve and be accountable to these members.
7. Section 3 of the Act does not include casual staff in the definition of academic and professional staff, therefore in Section 5 of the Act causal staff are not included in the constitution of the University.
8. Witnesses pointed to inconsistencies between membership of the University and representation on the University Council.
9. The Committee received evidence of a perception the University has deviated from its core functions of education and research specified in Section 6 of the Act, and has shifted to a more commercial focus.
10. The University does not consider commercial activity should be prescribed as a function of the University in the Act.
11. The University recognises the physical, educational and financial barriers that impact access to higher education in Tasmania and outlined a number of measures to assist in overcoming these barriers, with regard to principles of merit and equity.
12. There is an opportunity to review Section 6 of the Act to ensure the functions of the University as prescribed are contemporary and appropriate, and provide a basis for accountability of governance and decision-making.
13. Calls were made for regular independent review of the University to provide greater accountability in relation to delivering on the functions in the Act.
14. There is a perception that the exercise of the powers outlined in Section 7 are not required to be accountable to the functions prescribed in Section 6.
15. There is a perception that there is not an explicit relationship between the exercise of the powers outlined in Section 7 to the functions prescribed in Section 6.
16. Section 7(1) provides for the University to exercise its powers “both in Tasmania and elsewhere, all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.”
17. The powers prescribed in Section 7 of the Act are comparable to those provided for in the acts of other universities.
18. When the 1992 Act was passed by Parliament, the Hansard does not include any discussion of the intent or purpose of removing restrictions on the disposal of the land vested to the University in Sandy Bay (as specified in Schedule 3 of the Act).
19. In removing restrictions on the disposal of vested land in the 1992 Act, it is not clear whether the wholesale disposal of the Sandy Bay campus was contemplated.
20. Evidence provided to the Committee raised concerns about the absence of restrictions in the Act on the power of the University to dispose of the vested land in Sandy Bay.
21. The University regards the powers under the Act are appropriate and necessary in order to manage the financial position of the University and deliver its functions in a challenging funding environment.
22. Australian public universities operate on land that has been granted to them by the Crown, land purchased with public money, or Crown land. All the public universities in the Australian States – except for the University of Tasmania – are subject to legislative restrictions or prohibitions on the selling or dealing with land.
23. Since the University was established in 1889, there have been several changes to the governance structures prescribed in the Act.
24. The Act was reformed in 2001, reducing the membership of the University Council from 24 to 17, as a response to the Federal Government’s drive to reform governance of Australian universities.
25. The Act was further reformed in 2004 aligning membership appointments with the national governance protocols, reducing the size of the University Council to operate with a minimum operating level of 10 members and maximum of 14.
26. The Act exists as part of a complex framework and legislation that regulates public universities in Australia, including the TEQSA act and its subordinate legislation.
27. Witnesses identified there was a need for balance between managerial leadership and academic leadership in the dual governance model employed by modern universities.
28. Witnesses expressed a view that values of managerialism can be inconsistent with the values of academic decision-making.
29. In response to national reforms and consistent with national trends, the Act has been amended in 2001, 2004 and 2012, decreasing the size and changing the composition of the University Council. The number of members on Council is consistent with other Australian universities, albeit at the lower end of the range.
30. By national standards, the proportion of elected staff and student positions on University Council is low compared to other Australian universities and concerns were raised that this decrease has resulted in reduced democratic representation on University Council.
31. There are contested views on the Act’s current requirements regarding the constitution of the University Council.
32. Concerns were expressed regarding the lack of academic staff and professional staff representation on University Council and witnesses called for an increase in the number of these positions.
33. University governing bodies across the sector typically have two student members, with at least one elected by the student body.
34. Under previous iterations of the Act, the student member on the University Council was elected by the student body, via a process designed by the Tasmanian University Union.
35. While previously an elected position, currently the Act prescribes that the University Council appoints a student member to Council after consultation with relevant student associations. It is unclear whether the Act requires University Council to consult those associations on reappointment of student members.
36. Under Section 8 of the Act, the number of members appointed to the University Council may be up to four times the number of members elected to the Council.
37. Concerns were raised that the high proportion of members appointed to the University Council has resulted the development of a self-perpetuating culture, a lack of vigorous debate or dissenting views, and a tendency for ‘group think’ in Council decision-making.
38. While the Act prescribes two Council members are appointed by the Minister, there is no requirement for, or practice of, those members maintaining a relationship with, or providing reports to the Minister.
39. The Act prescribes the Minister appoints two Council members, however provides no guidance or requirements regarding the purpose or function of those appointments, as distinct from positions appointed through other means under the Act.
40. When recruiting for vacant positions, the University Council uses a skills and attributes matrix to identify the expertise required to ensure an appropriate and ongoing balance of skills among members of Council. Recruitment for vacant Council positions is then publicly advertised.
41. Historically, the University Council included a position for two members of Parliament, however these positions were removed when the Act was amended in 2001. No dedicated positions for members of Parliament are prescribed under legislation for any Australian university council.
42. Concerns were raised regarding the level of accountability of University Council under the Act, in particular the lack of accountability to the wider community which constitutes the University or the broader Tasmanian community it serves.
43. Evidence suggested there is potential for conflict under the Act between the University Council’s consideration of ‘the best interest of the university’ and the overarching function of the University to ‘promote the social, cultural and economic welfare of the community and make available for those purposes the resources of the university’. It is unclear how such a conflict should be resolved.
44. The Act prescribes the overarching function of the Academic Senate to advise the University Council on all academic matters relating to the university, while the constitution, functions, powers and proceedings are specified in Ordinance.
45. The University considers Academic Senate membership is best prescribed by ordinance rather than by the Act, as it allows for the necessary flexibility in membership, function and proceedings.
46. Concerns were raised regarding the membership of the Academic Senate, including: a) b) c) a significant number of ex officio appointments; a majority of members are in upper-level management roles; elected members are a minority; and d) a small proportion of members being senior academic staff actively engaged in significant teaching and research.
47. Concerns were expressed the Academic Senate is not constituted in a way which allows members to give frank and fearless advice, with a perception that the Senate is under the control of the executive management due to the top-down managerial structure and direct reporting lines.
48. Concerns were expressed that Academic Senate membership does not adequately represent the views of staff and students, and that academic decision-making is being undertaken by those with managerial rather than academic roles.
49. Concerns were expressed that the Academic Senate lacks genuine decision-making power, and instead performs a ‘rubber stamp’ function.
50. The Chair of the Academic Senate acknowledged evidence received by this Inquiry and outlined changes made to the operations of the Senate in response, including: a) b) management now seeks exploratory feedback on new policies or initiatives; the establishment of a new monitoring and assurance committee (5 academic staff representatives and 1 student representative) to increase input from academic staff who are not currently in management roles; and c) recognition that student voice needs to be included in academic governance.
51. The Act does not include any requirements to ensure accountability of executive decision- making.
52. Concerns were expressed regarding inadequate consultation with staff and students in executive decision-making processes, resulting in a detrimental impact on staff and student experience and outcomes.
53. The University has a Guide to Decision Making, however there does not appear to be a formal policy requiring consultation, nor does the Act contain a requirement for consultation in decision-making.
54. Under the Commonwealth Funding model, the University must generate independent sources of revenue and funding in order to deliver core activities.
55. Compared to other Australian universities, remuneration for the University Vice- Chancellor is above the median, however remuneration for academic and professional staff is at the lower end of the range.
56. While it is not necessarily appropriate to legislate to limit or direct the remuneration of executive management at the University, greater scrutiny and accountability for these decisions is desirable.
57. The Act’s requirement that the Annual Report contain ‘a full account of the income and expenditure of the University for the financial year to which it relates’ (Section 12(2)), does not ensure an appropriate and accountable level of detail in the report.
58. As the Act allows 6 months after the end of the financial year for the Annual Report to be provided to the Governor, and 10 sitting days beyond that for the Minister to table it in Parliament, Annual Reports have commonly been tabled up to 8 months after the end of the financial year.
59. In addition to the Annual Report, a corporate plan published at the beginning of the year would provide a further mechanism for transparency and accountability.
60. The University has indicated a willingness to consider opportunities for more detailed and transparent financial reporting.
61. The University has indicated a willingness to produce an Environment, Society and Governance (ESG) Report to provide accountability for key non-financial obligations.
62. The Act prescribes a role for the University that directly references the broader Tasmanian community (Section 6(g)), however there is no requirement for accountability to the community in the delivery of that role.
63. The Civic Universities Movement is a response by universities internationally to develop more explicit partnerships with their communities to address recognised challenges.
64. While the Act requires Treasurer’s approval for University borrowings, the University has other borrowing-like arrangements that are not captured by this requirement.
65. There is a lack of clarity on the relationship between the University and the State’s respective financial positions.
66. The University has been established under statute, therefore it should be accountable to the Tasmanian public through the Parliament.
67. The relationship between the University and State Parliament has changed over time, with fewer formal connections and a lack of active scrutiny.
68. The reduction in connection over time between the University and the State Parliament has led to missed opportunities to identify and proactively address issues as they have arisen.
69. While some Australian states have a Minister for Higher Education, the Tasmanian government does not include this as an explicit portfolio responsibility.
70. While the University is a publicly-funded institution, there is no external scrutiny processes of its major infrastructure expenditure.
71. The University considers academic freedom to be a fundamental value of a university, and that it is protected by its academic freedom and free speech policy.
72. The University of Tasmania Act 1992 does not specifically include reference to academic freedom, independence and autonomy, which is consistent with legislation establishing many other Australian universities.
73. Academic freedom is supported under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and legislation such as the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
74. The protection of academic freedom in policy does not provide the same level of protection as an enforceable requirement in legislation.
75. There are conflicting views on whether it is necessary to protect academic freedom through inclusion in the University of Tasmania Act 1992.
76. It was reported that managerial bullying and workplace culture issues have led to reluctance within the university workforce to speak out or criticise management for fear of reprisal.
77. Casualisation of the University workforce and associated lack of job security has contributed to a reluctance to speak out or criticise management.
78. The use of gagging clauses (including non- disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses) functions to reduce public criticism of the University by former staff.
79. The University’s complaint management mechanism, the Safe and Fair Communities Unit, is not considered by some staff and students to be a reliable, safe or independent means to seek redress for managerial bullying.
80. Currently, in relation to the University of Tasmania, the Tasmanian Ombudsman has a statutory role for administrative complaints and the Tasmanian Integrity Commission has a statutory role for misconduct complaints.
81. There is a lack of confidence in the internal University and external statutory complaint handling and dispute resolution processes.
82. The University needs to be mindful of its performance and ranking in order to continue to attract domestic and international students, and maintain the quality and rigour of its academic staff and research outputs.
83. It is challenging for a relatively small, state-wide university located across multiple regional and capital city campuses to maximise student access while also maintaining teaching and research of a high quality.
84. A regional presence is important to encourage student access to higher education, as well as providing the opportunity for the University to respond more effectively to skills needs state-wide.
85. There is an apparent reduction in the degree to which the University values its art, cultural, heritage and scientific collections, and a reduction in the provision of public lectures, music and theatre performances.
86. The Alumni Advisory Committee was inactive from 2017 to 2023, and there appears to have been no similarly structured mechanism for engagement of alumni and advice to the University.
87. A lack of opportunity for Alumni to be engaged and involved in the University risks diminishing support for the University, including financial contributions such as donations and bequests.
88. In 2018, the independently incorporated University Foundation was dissolved and the University Foundation Committee of the Council was established. Concerns were raised that this would result in a lack of transparency in relation to bequests and philanthropic ddonations
