CRICOS #00212K

IAU/IAUP Presidents’ Symposiumon

Institutional Autonomy Revisited:National Dimensions, Cross regional/national Experiences

‘Autonomy justified - efficiency and effectiveness; andAutonomy accounted for – responsibility’

Professor Ingrid MosesChancellor, University of Canberra (2006- )

Vice-Chancellor and President,University of New England (1997-2006)

Australia

CRICOS #00212K

Areas where government may be legally allowed to interfere and actually interferes:

• staff – appointments, promotions and status of academic and senior general staff;

• students – admissions, progress and discipline;• curriculum and teaching – methods, examinations, content, text books;• academic standards – degree standards, quality audits, accreditation;• research and publication – postgraduate teaching, priorities, freedom to

publish;• governance – councils, academic boards, students associations; and • administration and finance – funding of institutions; operating grants,

capital and equipment grants, one-off tasks, non-government funding, accountability arrangements. (Anderson, D and Johnson, R, 1988, p.1)

CRICOS #00212K

The following figures are taken from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

“University Autonomy in Twenty Countries” by Don Anderson and Richard Johnson Centre for Continuing Education, ANU

April 1998

CRICOS #00212K

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Averages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Authority to Intervene

CRICOS #00212K

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Singapore

Indonesia

Sri Lanka

Malaysia

Russia

Sweden

Thailand

Japan

USA

Canada

Averages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Actually Exerting Influence

CRICOS #00212K

The main purposes of Australian higher education are to:

• inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to the highest potential;

• enable individuals to learn throughout their lives (for personal growth and fulfilment, for effective participation in the workforce and for constructive contributions to society);

• advance knowledge and understanding• aid the applications of knowledge and understanding to the benefit of the

economy and society;• enable individuals to adapt and learn, consistent with the needs of an

adaptable knowledge-based economy and local, regional and national level; and

• contribute to a democratic, civilised society and promote the tolerance and debate that underpins it. (Nelson, B, April 2002 pp 1-2)

CRICOS #00212K

Australia had, and it was said it needed, a system of institutions with the following characteristics:

• value adding• learner-centred• high quality• equitable• responsive• diverse• innovative• flexible• cost-effective• publicly accountable, and• socially responsible. (Nelson, B., April 2002, pp 2-3)

CRICOS #00212K

The Institution Assessment Framework has four principal elements:

1. Organisational sustainability• strategic focus • risk management • financial viability

2. Achievements in higher education provision

• teaching/learning • research and research training • equity and indigenous access

CRICOS #00212K

3. Quality outcomes

• systems and processes • teaching/learning • research • AUQA audit

4. Compliance

• financial acquittal • national governance protocols • workplace reform • programme guidelines and legislation

CRICOS #00212K

Areas where government may be legally allowed to interfere and actually interferes:

• staff – appointments, promotions and status of academic and senior general staff;

• students – admissions, progress and discipline;• curriculum and teaching – methods, examinations, content, text books;• academic standards – degree standards, quality audits, accreditation;• research and publication – postgraduate teaching, priorities, freedom to

publish;• governance – councils, academic boards, students associations; and • administration and finance – funding of institutions; operating grants,

capital and equipment grants, one-off tasks, non-government funding, accountability arrangements. (Anderson, D and Johnson, R, 1988, p.1)

CRICOS #00212K

Australia had, and it was said it needed, a system of institutions with the following characteristics:

• value adding• learner-centred• high quality• equitable• responsive• diverse• innovative• flexible• cost-effective• publicly accountable, and• socially responsible. (Nelson, B., April 2002, pp 2-3)