APPENDIX 1


[Top]

TERMS OF REFERENCE

BACKGROUND

Australia has an internationally recognised high quality higher education system; a system which strives for excellence in teaching and research. The objective of this review is to develop excellence in management and accountability of the resources available to the higher education sector.

In the recent Budget the Commonwealth Government committed $16.5 billion to higher education over the 1996-98 funding triennium.

This review is not about reducing the resources available for the higher education sector but about ensuring that public sector funds are spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

The Budget brought more tough decisions for the public sector and recent reforms have had far reaching consequences for the way in which all public sector agencies operate, affecting their personnel and financial management practices; accountabilities; use of quality improvement strategies and performance measures; and their exposure to market competition. A further set of reforms will arise from the recent report, National Competition Policy, by Professor Hilmer.

While universities differ in a number of important ways from departments of State or Government Business Enterprises the higher education system has an obligation to ensure that its expenditure of Commonwealth funds accords with the broad standards set for public sector agencies. Within this context it is also necessary to recognise the requirements of State legislation under which most universities are established.

Universities have a unique mission. However, without compromising the independence or autonomy of the universities, it is timely and fiscally responsible to consider more carefully the implications of the public sector reform process for the Australian higher education system.

In broad terms the review will focus on the capacity of the higher education sector as a whole and individual institutions within it to cope with the major challenges facing our universities. These challenges include: changing budgetary circumstances; the impact of technology and communications on the sector's activities and operations; and the continuing pressures for more accountability and improved performance in a more competitive and international environment.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Committee is asked to examine and advise on the management and accountability requirements for ensuring Australia has a high quality, efficient and effective higher education sector.

Specific matters to be addressed include:

Commonwealth and State Governments;

In developing its advice the Committee should recognise key elements of current Government policy and objectives for higher education, especially in relation to:

In conducting its enquiry the Committee should consult widely with the higher education sector, State and Territory Governments and Commonwealth agencies involved in the funding and administration of higher education and those responsible for coordinating financial and public sector policy.

The Committee should report to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training by 1 December 1995.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr David Hoare - Chair

Mr Hoare is Chairman of Bankers Trust Australia Limited, Chairman of Telstra Corporation Ltd, Chairman of Pioneer International Ltd and President of Sydney University's Graduate School of Business Foundation. Over the last 25 years Mr Hoare has worked in securities and capital markets.

Professor Emeritus Gordon Stanley

Professor Stanley is Chair of the Higher Education Council and Deputy Chair of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training. He has had a long academic career and was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne and Chair of the Western Australian Higher Education Council.

Ms Rosemary Kirkby

Ms Kirkby currently heads the team responsible for the development of world class customer service in Lend Lease Retail Financial Services. She was previously responsible for workplace reform, including the development with the Finance Sector Union of the first enterprise development agreement for the group.

Professor Peter Coaldrake

Professor Coaldrake is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology. From 1990 to 1994 he was the Chair of the Public Sector Management Commission in Queensland.

Secretariat

Mr Kenney Lin

Mr Bob Goddard

Ms Dianne Peacock

Mr Stephen Pincus

Ms Fabiola Peresan



APPENDIX 2


[Top]

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Mr David Hoare (Chair)
Professor Gordon Stanley
Ms Rosemary Kirkby
Professor Peter Coaldrake
GPO Box 9880
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Telephone: (06) 240 7490

Facsimile: (06) 240 7487

Letter to Vice-Chancellors and Chancellors

On June 5 1995, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Simon Crean, announced the establishment of the Higher Education Management Review to develop recommendations for improved practices in management and accountability in publicly-funded higher education institutions.

In establishing the Review, the Minister has made it clear that its purpose is about ensuring that public funds are spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is not about reducing resources to the higher education sector. Equally, the Review Committee is itself very mindful of the important differences between universities and other categories of public sector and publicly-funded organisations. To that end, we see as one of our tasks the identification of those elements of the public sector reform agenda which might generate tangible improvements in the way universities discharge their teaching, research and service obligations.

The purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation with the universities. It is addressed to both Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors, with copies sent to other relevant institutions and bodies. In terms of the issues raised, we welcome both personal and institutional views, either separately or together. We would expect to settle upon a State-based program of visits some time after the completion of the current round of Quality visits.

The higher education sector in Australia comprises a diverse range of institutions which themselves have undergone significant change over recent years. In that respect, it is important for this Review to establish clearly the context in which it has been created and, at an early stage, to take account of the various sector or system-wide studies over recent years which have touched upon matters specifically relevant to our terms of reference. These include, but are not confined to: the CTEC Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education (1986); the Green Paper on Higher Education (1987); the Dawkins White Paper (1988); the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Report on Efficiency and Effectiveness of Institutional Practices in Higher Education (1988); the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training on Priorities for Reform in Higher Education (1990); the Higher Education Council Report on the Challenges Ahead (1990); the DEET-commissioned study on Performance Indicators in Higher Education (1991); the HEC Report on Achieving Quality (1992); and the reports arising out of the two Quality rounds thus far completed.

In addition to these system-wide studies, the Review team also will be drawing on the wide range of material, both Australian and overseas, relevant to the particular terms of reference.

The Review Committee is currently developing a program for consultations. Visits will not occur until after the current round of Quality visits has been completed and people have had a reasonable opportunity to reflect on the preliminary issues for discussion which are raised later in this correspondence.

The Committee intends to consult widely within the sector via public advertisement, and discussions with peak bodies, universities, and with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies.

The Committee has been considering in a preliminary way the various issues and questions arising out of the terms of reference. It is hoped that the matters set out below, items 1 to 8, will provide a basis for response and further discussion. To begin the process we would welcome your written views on some or all of these and other matters embraced by the terms of reference.

Even at this stage it seems unlikely the report will spend time reporting on the details of individual cases or specific points of view. The spectrum of higher education is too broad for that to be effective. What is much more likely to develop is a number of foci where, in the light of enquiry, there is a clear need or belief that practice could be improved. It will be up to the individual institutions to expand on these matters, depending on their individual requirements and situations.

1. Accountability

Universities account for their use of funds to both State and Commonwealth governments, and to the Commonwealth through the profiles process for management of their academic, research and capital funds.

To what extent do current external and internal accountability requirements assist efficiency and effectiveness in internal management? To what extent do accountability requirements unduly inhibit internal flexibility and to what extent do they provide information on the level and quality of performance?

2. Organisational effectiveness

What measures of organisational effectiveness are appropriate to universities? Which are used in your institution, and how?

Are universities organised to initiate change in the context of a changing environment (eg, Hilmer reforms, convergence of technologies, increased international competition)?

3. Governance

Which aspects of the university's existing governance structures support the university's effective management, and which inhibit it?

4. Employment and Personnel Practices

What flexibility do institutions have in employment and personnel practices to take into account new academic priorities and the staffing implications of changes to the teaching and learning environment?

The notion of tenure has long been associated, and importantly so, with academic freedom. However, to what extent has the issue of tenure in the contemporary setting become an issue about the capacity of the system to retain and reward good staff on the one hand, and deal with poor performance on the other? How can tenure arrangements be modified to improve flexibility and gender equity?

What type of arrangements should be in place in higher education institutions to facilitate communication and decision-making, both top-down and bottom-up?

5. Financial Management

Are allocative procedures between teaching, research and income generation transparent and appropriate? To what extent is financial management in the university viewed strategically vis-a-vis an allocative process?

6. Effective Use of Institutional Assets

To what extent do current systems optimise the use of the existing asset stock and provide arrangements for depreciation of that stock?

7. Sharing of Resources

What barriers are there to institutions sharing costly infrastructure, and what system-level policies or practices might enhance this sharing?

8. Commonwealth / State Responsibilities

Are there aspects of regulatory practices at either level of government, or at the intersection of the two levels, which inhibit the capacity of institutions to achieve desirable results, or the efficient use of resources?

The Committee would be most grateful to receive your responses on any or all of the above matters by 15 August 1995.

Yours sincerely


(signed)

David Hoare

APPENDIX 3


[Top]

CONSULTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

List of Consultations

Date Organisation/Individual
8 Aug 1995 Victorian Government Officials
9 Aug 1995 South Australia Government
10 Aug 1995 Western Australia State Government Officials
11 Aug 1995 Queensland Office of Higher Education
11 Aug 1995 Queensland Dept of Treasury
11 Aug 1995 Queensland Audit Office
21 Aug 1995 National Tertiary Education Union (Sydney)
23 Aug 1995 Sydney University; Southern Cross University; Macquarie University
24 Aug 1995 Australian National University
24 Aug 1995 University of Canberra
25 Aug 1995 Dept of Prime Minister & Cabinet; Department of Finance; Treasury Department
28 Aug 1995 Edith Cowan University
28 Aug 1995 University of Western Australia
28 Aug 1995 Curtin University of Technology
29 Aug 1995 Murdoch University
30 Aug 1995 National Tertiary Education Union (Melbourne)
30 Aug 1995 ACTU Melbourne
30 Aus 1995 Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
31 Aug 1995 Higher Education Council
31 Aug 1995 National Union of Students
31 Aug 1995 Monash University; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; University of Ballarat
1 Sept 1995 Graduate Careers Council of Australia
1 Sept 1995 Swinburne University of Technology; University of Melbourne
1 Sept 1995 Deakin University
4 Sept 1995 University of New England; University of New South Wales; University of Wollongong
4 Sept 1995 Dept of Training & Education Coordination; Higher Education Unit DTEC; NSW Cabinet Office; NSW Treasury; NSW Audit Office
4 Sept 1995 Business-Higher Education Round Table
6 Sept 1995 University of Queensland
6 Sept 1995 Griffith University
6 Sept 1995 University of Southern Queensland
6 Sept 1995 Queensland University of Technology
7 Sept 1995 Flinders University
7 Sept 1995 University of South Australia
8 Sept 1995 University of Adelaide
8 Sept 1995 South Australia Review of Governance Committee
8 Sept 1995 South Australia Minister for Education
11 Sept 1995 Batchelor College
11 Sept 1995 Northern Territory University
12 Sept 1995 James Cook University; Central Queensland University
13 Sept 1995 University of Newcastle; University of Sydney; Charles Sturt University

List of Consultations (continued)

Date Organisation/Individual
13 Sept 1995 University Technology Sydney, University of Western Sydney;
15 Sept 1995 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Victoria University
15 Sept 1995 Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations
18 Sept 1995 Institutional Finance Experts
18 Sept 1995 Dr Carol Dickenson (Queensland University of Technology)
19 Sept 1995 Department of Finance
20 Sept 1995 Mr Sam Ragusa (Griffith University)
20 Sept 1995 University of Tasmania
21 Sept 1995 Mr Peter Wade (Monash University)
21 Sept 1995 Management Practices in Higher Education Research Team
21 Sept 1995 La Trobe University
21 Sept 1995 National Tertiary Education Union (Melbourne)
21 Sept 1995 Australian Higher Education Industrial Association
25 Sept 1995 Australian Maritime College
10 Oct 1995 Professor Bill Ford (Lend Lease)
10 Oct 1995 University of Melbourne
10 Oct 1995 Meeting on Equity and Gender Issues in Higher Education
23 Oct 1995 Meeting with Department of Employment, Education and Training

List of Submissions

Higher Education Institutions

Professor P J Drake (Vice-Chancellor) Australian Catholic University

Mr P Baume (Chancellor) Australian National University

Professor R D Terrell (Vice-Chancellor) Australian National University

Captain R F Short (Principal) Australian Maritime College

Professor G Wilson (Vice-Chancellor) Central Queensland University

Professor C D Blake (Vice-Chancellor) Charles Sturt University

Professor J E Maloney (Vice-Chancellor) Curtin University of Technology

Professor R Lourens (Vice-Chancellor) Edith Cowan University

Professor I Chubb (Vice-Chancellor) Flinders University

Professor R Golding (Vice-Chancellor) James Cook University

Professor N F Millis (Chancellor) La Trobe University

Mr M A Besley (Chancellor) Macquarie University

Professor D Yerbury (Vice-Chancellor) Macquarie University

Professor M I Logan (Vice-Chancellor) Monash University

Professor R Pargetter (A/g Vice-Chancellor) Monash University

Professor P J Boyce (Vice-Chancellor) Murdoch University

Professor M Nairn (Vice-Chancellor) Northern Territory University

Professor R D Gibson (Vice-Chancellor) Queensland University of Technology

Ms R Dunkin (A/g Vice-Chancellor) Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Professor B Conyngham (Vice-Chancellor) Southern Cross University

Professor J G Wallace (Vice-Chancellor) Swinburne University of Technology

Professor G Brown (Vice-Chancellor) University of Adelaide

Professor D James (Vice-Chancellor) University of Ballarat

Mr D Horne (Chancellor) & Professor D Aitkin (Vice-Chancellor) University of Canberra

Professor D Penington (Vice-Chancellor) University of Melbourne

Professor B Sheehan (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Resources) University of Melbourne

Professor R Mortley (Vice-Chancellor) University of Newcastle

Ms P O'Shane (Chancellor) & Professor B Thom (Vice-Chancellor) University of New England

List of Submissions (continued)

Higher Education Institutions (continued)

Sir A Mason (Chancellor) University of New South Wales

Professor J Niland (Vice-Chancellor) University of New South Wales

Professor B Wilson (Vice-Chancellor) University of Queensland

Professor B Leal (Vice-Chancellor) University of Southern Queensland

Professor D Anderson (A/g Vice-Chancellor & Principle) University of Sydney

Professor R Lidl (Deputy Vice-Chancellor) University of Tasmania

Professor R N Johnson (Chancellor) University of Technology Sydney

Professor R D Guthrie (Vice-Chancellor) University of Technology Sydney

Mr M R Orr (Registrar) University of Western Australia

Professor A Robson (A/g Vice-Chancellor) University of Western Australia

Professor D Schreuder (Vice-Chancellor) University of Western Sydney

Professor R M Hope (Chancellor) & Prof G R Sutton (Vice-Chancellor) University of Wollongong

Professor J Ronayne (Vice-Chancellor) Victoria University of Technology

Other Bodies

ACTU Interim Submission

Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA)

Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee

Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Inc

Department of Finance

Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Association (EOPHEA)

Minister for Primary Industries and Energy

National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) - Initial Submission

National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) - Supplementary Submission

Queensland Auditor General

The Cabinet Office, New South Wales

Western Australia Treasury

Individuals

Dr A Brand

Dr H Colebatch

Professor B Crittenden

Dr J Currie

Associate Professor E Deane

Professor J Goldring

Ms H Hayes

Mr D Hughes

Prof P Karmel

Mr J Kelmar

Dr A Klovdahl

Ms N Lengkeek

Mr M Lewis

Dr A Lonsdale

Professor S Miller

Mr G Moodie

Professor A R Moon

Dr Gideon Maxwell Polya

Professor L Rosenman

Dr K Sawyer

Professor D Scheiwe

Dr K Sloane

Mr R Shelton & Mr G Quinn

Individuals (continued)

Dr R H T Smith

Mr P Whalley and Mr D Price

Mr P Woloch

APPENDIX 4


[Top]

COMMONWEALTH FUNDING FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION, 1983-1997

STATEMENT RELEASED BY THE MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING, THE HON. SIMON CREAN MP IN OCTOBER 1995

This paper examines resources allocated to higher education through DEET programs since 1983, and in particular over the ten year period following the release of Higher Education a Policy Statement (the White Paper) in July 1988, which signalled the Commonwealth's long term commitment to the expansion of Australia's higher education system.

THE DATA REPORTED

Cost Levels

All financial amounts included in this paper are expressed in constant prices based on the December quarter 1995 cost adjustment factor (CAF) for recurrent expenditure. For a full series of higher education CAFs see Supplementary Higher Education Funding Report for the 1994-1996 Triennium.

Student Load

Student load is measured in Equivalent Full Time Student Units (EFTSU). An EFTSU represents the load generated by a student undertaking a standard annual course of higher education. Except where otherwise stated, all student load quantities refer to the target or funded level of student load for the higher education system as a whole.

GROWTH OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

The higher education sector has expanded substantially since 1983. From 1983 to 1995, total student numbers increased by 73 per cent, from 349,000 in 1983 to 604,000 in 1995. Not all of this growth was funded by the Commonwealth. There was a sharp increase in full fee paying overseas students between 1987, when they numbered 1,020 and 1994, when they had increased to 39,770. Total (funded) target student load, as measured in Equivalent Full Time Student Units (EFTSU), will rise by 63 per cent from 260,000 EFTSU in 1983 to 424,500 EFTSU in 1997.

RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH DEET PROGRAMS

Consistent with the expansion in the higher education sector, total resources allocated through DEET programs will have increased in real terms by 69 per cent, from $3.1 billion in 1983 to $5.3 billion in 1997. Table 1 breaks down higher education funding over the period 1983­1997 into its major components: operating grants, capital grants, research grants, and funding for Joint Commonwealth/Industry funded places, evaluations and investigations, open learning, multi-media and student unions.

Higher education institutions also derive very substantial income from non-DEET sources. For example in 1993, total non-DEET income was $2 billion (excluding HECS). Non-DEET income has risen sharply from under $1 billion in 1989.

To provide a consistent basis for representing real changes in higher education funding, funding per Equivalent Full Time Student Unit has been calculated. Table 2 outlines funding per EFTSU over the period 1983-1997 in total, for operating grants, capital grants and research grants.

Total DEET Funding

Total DEET funding for higher education per EFTSU fell by 4 per cent in real terms between 1983 and 1987 before rising from 1988. Real funding per EFTSU had returned to 1983 levels by 1992 and by 1997, total funding per EFTSU is planned to be 3 per cent higher than in 1983. Total funding per EFTSU has ranged from a low of $11,660 in 1987 to a peak of $12,575 in 1996.

Within the overall increase in funding levels per EFTSU, there have been changes in the relative contribution from the components of operating grants, research and capital. Institutions which are members of the Unified National System (UNS) receive operating grants as support for their teaching, research and capital activities on a rolling triennial basis. Higher education institutions outside the UNS receive funding on an annual contract basis for teaching activities only.

Capital

Provision for the capital needs of higher education institutions has increased dramatically since 1983. Total capital funding in 1997 will be $284 million, an increase of 443 per cent on 1983 capital funding of $52 million.

Real capital funding per EFTSU is projected to increase by some 230 per cent from $200 in 1983 to $670 in 1997. Capital funding per EFTSU has ranged from a low of $200 in 1983 to a peak of $875 in 1992. The average funding rate for capital rose dramatically in 1992 following large injections of funds for new capital developments and the refurbishment of existing facilities, announced in the 1991 Budget and the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Statement on the Economy and Employment, in November 1991. The capital funding rate has stabilised since 1992.

Research

By 1997 total research funding (outside of operating grant) will amount to $385 million, an increase of 392 per cent on 1983 research funding of $78 million. Research funding per EFTSU is expected to increase by 200 per cent in real terms from $300 in 1983 to $910 in 1997.

As part of a policy to promote quality research through more competitive research activities, the Commonwealth began reallocating funds from pre-UNS universities' general operating grants through the Australian Research Council (ARC) in 1989. These 'clawback' funds have been distributed back to the institutions on a competitive basis for specific research support. Some $19 million was reallocated in this way in 1989, rising to $45 million in 1990 and $77 million from 1991. Removing ARC 'clawback' funds from research grants reduces the size of the increase in funding per EFTSU between 1983 and 1997 to 140 per cent.

Large injections of funding were made in 1990 and 1991 following the May 1989 Science and Technology Statement, Research for Australia: Higher Education's Contribution. Increased resources were provided for research grants and postgraduate research awards, and funding for research infrastructure was introduced.

Operating Grant

Operating grants for UNS members are composed of four main components: a teaching related component, a research related component (the research quantum), a capital component (the capital 'roll-in', which commenced in 1994) and an Aboriginal support component. Operating grants are the largest single component of DEET funding for higher education, although their share of total DEET funding has declined from 96 per cent in 1983 to an anticipated 87 per cent in 1997. This proportional change reflects the increased provision for capital and research activities and the introduction of new funding programs for initiatives relating to the changing role of higher education, eg open learning and multi-media. For the purpose of this analysis, quality assurance funds have been classified as part of operating grant since they are available for allocation at the discretion of the institution.

Operating grant funding per EFTSU decreased in real terms by 9 per cent from $11,600 in 1983 to $10,535 in 1991, with upward movements in the average funding rate commencing in 1992. In 1997, base operating grant funding per EFTSU is expected to be $10,860 or 6 per cent lower than the 1983 rate. The greatest part of this decline occurred prior to the release of the White Paper. Over the period of the new policy framework (1988 to 1997), base operating grant funding per EFTSU remains effectively unchanged (-1%) while all other categories of funding increased sharply as noted above.

With the addition of ARC 'Clawback' funding back into operating grants, a smoother trend in operating grant funding per EFTSU emerges from 1989. On this basis, operating grant funding per EFTSU returned to 1988 levels by 1994 after a decline in 1991 when the average funding rate for new growth places was adjusted downwards.

It is also important to interpret the overall trend in base operating grant funding per EFTSU over 1983-1997 in light of the increasing scope and size of capital and research funding. The greatly increased funding for capital and research includes resources for activities such as capital maintenance (capital roll-in), research infrastructure, specific research support and small research grants. Prior to 1989 institutions were largely required to fund these activities from the general operating grant.

SUMMARY

Total Commonwealth funding available to higher education between 1983 and 1997 has increased at a greater rate than has the number of Commonwealth funded student places. The balance of funds allocated across the higher education sector has changed to respond to evolving priorities. In particular, the share of total funds represented by capital funding and research funding has increased. It is also important to note that at the same time as total resources per EFTSU available have increased, higher education institutions themselves have been afforded greater flexibility in managing their funds according to their own priorities with the introduction of programs such as the capital roll in and the research infrastructure block grants. They have also increased very substantially their income from non government sources.

APPENDIX 5


[Top]

STRUCTURE OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BODIES


EIP




Footnotes to Appendix 5
Charles Sturt Uni (a) Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the three CSU campuses.
(b) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(c) 4 being persons associated with western and south-western New South Wales and
4 being persons nominated by the Council of the University of New South Wales.
Macquarie Uni (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
Southern Cross Uni (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(b) 2 nominees are from UNSW, the sponsoring university for SCU.
Uni of New England (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(b) Deputy President of the Academic Senate if the VC is the President.
(c) The appointed members are to be from the following categories: education; technology,
industry, business or industrial relations; the professions; and persons having other
appropriate qualifications or experience.
(d) Not to include academic or general staff or students
(e) Not to include academic or general staff.
Uni of NSW (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
Uni of Sydney (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(b) Deputy President of the Academic Senate if the VC is the President.
(c) One of whom is appointed on the nomination of the Senate.
(d) Not to include academic or general staff or students
(e) Not to include academic or general staff.
Uni of Tech, Sydney (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(b) Deputy President of the Academic Senate if the VC is the President.
(c) The appointed members are to be from the following categories: education; technology,
industry, business or industrial relations; the professions; and persons having other
appropriate qualifications or experience.
(d) Not to include academic or general staff or students
UWestern Sydney (a) Excluding the Vice-Chancellor.
Uni of Wollongong (a) One from the Legislative Council and one from the Legislative Assembly.
(b) Deputy President of the Academic Senate if the VC is the President.
(c) The appointed members are to be from the following categories: arts or education;
technology, industry, commerce or industrial relations; the professions; and persons
associated with the Illawarra and South Coast
(d) Not to include academic or general staff or students
Deakin University (a) One elected by and from professors, two elected by and from non-professors.
La Trobe University (a) One with interests in the Albury/Wodonga region, three with interests in the Bendigo
region and three from the Academic Board.
(b) One elected by metropolitan campus undergraduate students and one by country
campus undergraduate students.
Monash University (a) Elected by joint sitting of Legislative Council (1) and Legislative Assembly (2).
(b) Representing agricultural, professional, industrial and commercial interests, including
one nominated by the Victorian Trades Hall Council.
(c) Not to be a staff member or student.
(d) Appointments from Councils of associated Universities or University Colleges (can be
up to 4 persons).
(e) 3 professors (elected by professors) and 4 other members of the teaching staff
(f) The CEO of the Ministry of Education or Deputy CEO.
(g) Not to include staff or students.
(h) Appointed by the Council.
Royal Melb Inst of (a) One from the Academic Board and one from the Board of Technical Studies
Technology (b) One from the City Campus and one from the Northern Campus.
(c) One from the academic staff and one from the teaching staff of the City Campus and
one from the academic staff of the Northern Campus.
(d) Two each from the City Campus and the Northern Campus.
(e) Elected by joint sitting of Legislative Council (1) and Legislative Assembly (2).
Footnotes to Appendix 5 (continued)
Swinburne Uni of (a) Two from higher education and two from TAFE.
Technology (b) Elected by and from TAFE students
Uni of Ballarat (a) Appointed by Governor in Council recommended by joint sitting of Parliament.
(b) Appointed by the University of Melbourne
Uni of Melbourne (a) Representing industry, commerce, agriculture and manufacturing
(b) Elected by joint sitting of Legislative Council (1) and Legislative Assembly (2).
(c) The President of the Student Union and the President of the Postgraduate Association.
(d) Including 2 Heads of Colleges
Victoria Uni of (a) Person nominated by the Board of Technical and Further Education.
Technology (b) 2 from higher education and 1 from technical and further education.
(c) Not to include staff or students of the University.
(d) To include 3 persons who line or work in the Western Metropolitan Region of
Melbourne and 2 persons with experience in technical and further education.
Central Qld Uni (a) The Director-General of Education or nominee
(b) Not to be a member of staff or enrolled student.
Griffith University (a) The Director-General of Education or nominee
(b) Not more than three, not to include persons who are students or members of staff
(c) Three senior academics and one junior academic.
(d) One postgraduate, one full-time undergraduate and one part-time undergraduate.
(e) Two members of the Advisory Council of the Gold Coast College of Griffith University.
James Cook Uni of (a) Regional Director of Education, Northern Region or nominee.
North. Qld (b) At least one of whose primary responsibility is in the teaching of courses in advanced
education, one to be a member of the Staff Association appointed by the Staff Assoc.
Association of the University and appointed by Staff Association.
(c) One to be enrolled in a course in advanced education and two to be either graduates or
enrolled students appointed by the Union.
(e) At least five shall have a principal interest in advanced education.
(f) No more than one to be a member of the teaching or research staff of the university, no
more than two to be teachers and no more than one selected on the basis of being a
graduate or Councillor from Townsville CAE.
Qld University of (a) Usually includes local member of parliament.
Technology (b) The Director-General of Education or nominee
(c) Not to be a member of staff or enrolled student.
Uni of Southern Qld (a) The Director-General of Education or nominee
(b) Not to be a member of staff or enrolled student.
Uni of Qld (a) The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane
a member of the Academic Senate and the Director-General of Education or nominee.
(b) Not more than two to be teaching staff from the University.
(c) Three full-time staff who are graduates, one full-time staff member who is not a graduate.
(d) The President of the Academic Staff Association.
Curtin Uni of (a) In addition, each branch of the university is managed by a board which consists of 8
Technology ministerial appointments, the chief executive officer of the branch, 2 persons from
Council (only one can be a staff member), 1 academic and 1 general staff member and a
a student of the branch.
(b) Representative of professions and industrial and commercial interests.
(c) Chief executive officer of education department and 2 chairpersons of board or branch,
appointed by Minister.
(d) Not to include persons who is a member of the University staff.
Edith Cowan Uni (a) Persons with experience in education, the professions, industry or commerce and other
persons representative of the community.
(b) Chief executive officer of education department.
(c) Chair of the Board of the Academy of Performing Arts and the Chairperson of the
Bunbury Campus Advisory Board.
Footnotes to Appendix 5 (continued)
Uni of Western (a) Chief executive officer of education department.
Australia (b) President of the Guild of Undergraduates.
(c) One shall have served in the Armed Forces and two members of the convocation.
Flinders Uni of SA (a) May be more than one Pro-Chancellor
(b) At least one but no more than two of the Pro VCs or Deputy VCs, appointed by VC.
(c) Two from Legislative and three from House of Assembly.
(d) Not being students or employees of the University.
Uni of Adelaide (a) Three elected by the House of Assembly and two elected by the Legislative Council.
(b) Elected by Convocation.
(c) Elected by Convocation, only one shall be a member of the ancillary staff.
Uni of South Aust. (a) Deputy presiding member of the Academic Board, if the VC is the presiding member.
(b) Nominated by the Minister but after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
(c) One must be a postgraduate and the others must be undergraduates.
University of (a) Deputy-Chairperson of Academic Senate if the Vice-Chancellor is the Chair.
Tasmania (b) One person appointed by the Visitor of the University, 2 people appointed by Council.
(c) Two appointed jointly by the Minister and Council and two appointed by the Minister.
(d) One member of the House of Assembly and one member of the Legislative Council.
Northern Territory (a) Chair of the Vocational Education and Training Board.
University (b) Appointed by the Administrator, 2 persons to have expertise in matters relating to trade
unions, 2 persons to have expertise in matters relating to business or industry and
7 persons representing a broad range of community interests.
(c) One higher education academic and one vocational education and training academic.
Aust. National Uni (a) Chair of the Board of the Institute and the Chair of the Board of Faculties.
(b) Appointments are made by Governor General.
(c) One person (Senator or MHR) nominated by PM and one by Leader of the Opposition
(d) Appointed by the Chief Minister of the ACT
(e) Elected by Deans and Heads of Research Schools.
(e) One academic from the Institute and one academic from the Faculties
(f) Presidents of the postgraduate and research students' and the students' associations.
Canberra Uni (a) Appointments are made by Governor General.
(b) Appointed by the Chief Minister of the ACT
(c) Nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University
(d) Not a student or employee of the University
Aust Catholic Uni (a) Two from NSW, two from Victoria and one each from Qld and ACT.
(b) Two from La Trobe Uni (sponsoring institution), six nominated by Senate and elected
by members of the company and eight appointed by the Company.

APPENDIX 6


[Top]

COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND
COMPANIES BILL, 1994 (EXTRACT)

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES

General definitions

'director' means:

(a) for a Commonwealth authority that has a council or other governing body - a member of the governing body;

(b) for a Commonwealth authority that does not have a council or other governing body - a member of the authority;

(c) for a Commonwealth company - a person who is a director of the company for the purposes of the Corporations Law;

'executive officer', in relation to a Commonwealth authority, means:

(a) a director of the authority; or

(b) any other person who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of the authority;

Directors must disclose pecuniary interests

21. (1) A director of a Commonwealth authority who has a material personal interest in a matter that is being considered, or is about to be considered, by the Board must disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Board.

(2) The disclosure must be made as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the director's knowledge, and must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(3) Unless the Board or the responsible Minister otherwise determines, the director:

(a) must not be present during any deliberation by the Board on the matter; and

(b) must not take part in any decision of the Board on the matter.

(4) For the purpose of a determination being made under subsection (3), any director who has a material personal interest in the matter to which the disclosure relates:

(a) must not be present during any deliberation by the Board on whether to made the

determination; and

(b) must not take part in making the determination.

(5) In this section 'Board' means the directors of the authority.

Executive officers must act honestly etc.

22. (1) An executive officer of a Commonwealth authority must at all times act honestly in the exercise of his or her powers and the discharge of his or her duties.

Maximum penalty:

(a) if the offence was committed with intent to deceive or defraud any person or for any fraudulent purpose - imprisonment for 5 years; and

(b) in any other case - 50 penalty units.

(2) In the exercise of his or her powers and the discharge of his or her duties, an executive officer of a Commonwealth authority (the 'actual authority') must exercise the same degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person in a like position in a Commonwealth authority would exercise in the actual authority's circumstances.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

Improper use of inside information or position

23. (1) An executive officer (or former executive officer) of a Commonwealth authority must not make improper use of inside information or of his or her position as an executive officer in order to:

(a) gain an advantage for any person, either directly or indirectly; or

(b) cause detriment to the authority.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(2) If an executive officer is also a public servant, nothing done by the executive officer in the normal course of the performance of his or her duties as a public servant is to be regarded as improper for the purposes of subsection (1). For this purpose, 'public servant' means an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922.

(3) In this section, 'inside information' means information obtained because of the person's position as an executive officer.

Liability of executive officer to pay compensation or damages

24. (1) If:

(a) a court convicts a person of an offence against section 22 or 23; and

(b) the court is satisfied that the Commonwealth authority suffered loss or damage as a result of the act or omission that constituted the offence;

the court may, in addition to imposing a penalty, order the convicted person to pay compensation to the authority of an amount that the court specifies. The order may be enforced as if it were a judgement of the court.

(2) If, as a result of a person having contravened section 22 or 23 in relation to a Commonwealth authority:

(a) any person made a profit; or

(b) the authority suffered loss or damage;

the person who contravened is liable to pay the authority an amount equal to the profit, or the loss or damage. The liability applies whether or not the person has been convicted of an offence in respect of the contravention. The authority may recover the amount as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(3) If, in proceedings to recover an amount under subsection (2), it appears to the court that:

(a) the defendant has acted honestly; and

(b) the defendant ought fairly to be excused for the contravention, having regard to all the circumstances;

the court may relieve the defendant either wholly or partly from the liability to pay the amount.

Other obligations and remedies not affected

25. This Division:

(a) does not detract from any rule of law relating to the duty or liability that a person has because of the person's office or employment in relation to a Commonwealth authority; and

(b) does not prevent civil proceedings being instituted for breach of such a duty or in respect of such a liability.

Restrictions on indemnifying executive officers

26. (1) A Commonwealth authority or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth must not indemnify a person who is or has been an executive officer of the authority against either of the following liabilities incurred by the person as an executive officer of the authority:

(a) a liability to the authority or to any subsidiary of the authority;

(b) a liability to another person (other than the authority or a subsidiary of the authority) arising out of conduct involving a lack of good faith.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent a person from being indemnified against either of the following liabilities:

(a) a liability for costs or expenses incurred by the person in defending civil proceedings in which judgment is given in favour of the person;

(b) a liability for costs or expenses incurred by the person defending criminal proceedings in which the person is acquitted.

(3) Subject to this section, a Commonwealth authority may indemnify a person who is or has been an executive officer against liabilities incurred by the person as an executive officer.

(4) A Commonwealth authority (or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority) must not exempt a person who is or has been an executive officer of the authority from any liability incurred by the person as an executive officer of the authority.

(5) In this section: 'indemnify' includes indemnify through one or more interposed entities.

Insurance premiums for indemnity insurance of executive officers

27. (1) A Commonwealth authority or a subsidiary of a Commonwealth authority must not pay, or agree to pay, a premium on a contract that insures a person who is or has been an executive officer of the authority against a liability:

(a) incurred by the person as an executive officer of the authority; and

(b) arising out of conduct that involves a contravention of section 23 or a wilful breach of duty in relation to the authority.

(2) If subsection (1) is contravened, the contract is void in so far as it insures the person against such a liability.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a liability for costs and expenses incurred by a person in defending civil or criminal proceedings, whatever their outcome.

(4) Subject to this section, a Commonwealth authority may insure a person who is or has been an executive officer against liabilities incurred by the person as an executive officer.

(5) In this section: 'pay' includes pay indirectly through one or more interposed entities.

APPENDIX 7


[Top]

PRIORITY BASE BUDGETING AT THE NORTHERN TERRITORY UNIVERSITY

The Priority Base Budgeting process commenced in 1993 after the University's financial plan highlighted the need to adjust expenditure patterns to reflect the changing funding environment. It was adapted from the process used at Salford University in the UK (and practised in a number of other UK universities) to review and determine the level of service the University would fund for the central support functions and general overheads. The process should allow the funding for administration to be allocated according to the priorities of the University in a fair and rational manner.

The process was selected because:

The process involves staff in different roles including a steering committee, a review panel, senior managers, service area managers (responsible for the service or activity) and a project officer The service area manager analyses what currently happens, identifies alternative ways of working, formulates a range of service levels and identifies what needs to be done. They usually control expenditure within the area. The senior manager writes guidelines for proposals and provides support to the service area manager. The review panel listens to a series of budget proposals, allocates ranks to service levels and recommends funding levels. It usually consists of 5-8 senior managers and represents both users and providers of services (they must think along corporate rather than parochial lines). The project officer works with the review panel to facilitate the process.

The main components of the process are strategic plans, planning guidelines, resource analysis, proposed service improvements with associated service levels, budget proposals. priority setting and a structured budget. The process has four stages:

1. Strategic planning - high level planning on quality, service requirements, research goals, student numbers, course profile etc.

2. Planning guidelines and resource analysis ­ the planning guidelines are prepared for each service area by a senior manager and interpret the strategic plan for the area. During the resource analysis process the service area manager analyses the activities currently underway and details all costs for each activity. The review panel then examines the completed planning guidelines and resource analyses and comments on relevance and resource use. It ensures all guidelines are consistent with the strategic plan and looks for duplication across service areas. The review panel uses quantitative and qualitative performance indicators and benchmarks to assess resource use.

3. Service improvement, service levels and budget proposal ­ the service improvement process entails providers and users of each service area exploring ways of improving service delivery both in terms of quality and/or cost efficiency. The service area manager develops a range of service levels for each service area. These should range from the minimum legal requirement, through the level of service currently provided to an expanded level of service. Each identified level is costed. The range of service levels and the best service improvement suggestions (with costs and consequences of not being funded) are built into a budget proposal by the area service manager. Each budget proposal is then reviewed by the review panel in the presence of the service area manager and the senior manager to ensure that 'service levels are sensible and suggested improvements are feasible.

4. Final proposals and priority listing - the budget proposal is then adjusted to take account of the review and then members of the review panel vote on each service level for each service area. The votes are consolidated, service levels are ranked according to the average vote received and incorporated into a priority listing. Costs of each service are then compared with the current budget. The review panel then determines a funding line. This may be at 100% of current budget or not, depending upon the climate facing the organisation.

The process allows the university to receive value for money from a better allocation of resources. Levels of service in priority areas are expanded as a result of cost reductions in other areas. It provides a chance to talk to internal customers and ask whether requirements are being met so that jobs can be done more effectively. It is a tool that helps managers manage wore effectively and is an effective catalyst for introducing change. It has also proved to be a highly efficient vehicle for generating new ideas.

APPENDIX 8


[Top]

QUALITY NETWORK FOR UNIVERSITIES

The Quality Network for Universities (QNU) was established in 1993 by Canadian university leaders committed to 'responding proactively and with imagination to the unprecedented pressures facing their institutions' and interested in total quality and related change strategies as an avenue for doing so. The establishment of the network is the result of close collaboration among the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers and a steering group of university presidents, working with The Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board of Canada provides substantive expertise, organisational services and research support to the Network under the general guidance of members. Fifteen universities are members of the Network.

The objective of the Quality Network for Universities is to provide members with:

Activities are guided by the executive, with two co-chairs at the Presidents' level.

The core services of the Network are:

Members are able to draw on other services offered by the Conference Board on a fee-for-service basis, such as the Board's regular CEO Quality Roundtables, customised briefings, specialised study groups, training opportunities and special meetings or conferences.

[TOP ]--[Index]--[DEETYA Home Page ]

Bar

Any comments or queries should be sent to wwweditor@deetya.gov.au

This page was last updated on 29 July 1996

Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia