51³Ô¹Ï

Pay deals for Australian university executives would have to conform to predetermined ¡°classification and remuneration¡± rules thrashed out between governments and the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal, under recommendations from a Senate committee.

Executive pay would be detailed each year in ¡°annual remuneration reports¡± outlining the ¡°role-specific salaries¡± of senior officers.

Spending on consultancies would be reported in detail, including ¡°the purpose of each consultancy and the extent to which the capacity exists to perform that function within the institution¡±.

Universities would be obliged to conduct ¡°meaningful consultation¡± with staff before unleashing major restructures. Their governing bodies would have a ¡°minimum proportion¡± of elected staff and student representatives, who would be entitled to the same ¡°respectful treatment¡± as eminent outsiders.

Councils would also have to meet membership benchmarks for higher education and public administration experience, maintain conflict-of-interest registers and publish the minutes of their meeting in full, redacting only ¡°personal or legally protected information¡±.

The proposals are among 12 recommendations from the Senate¡¯s Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which has released the from its inquiry into university governance.

Tony Sheldon, the committee¡¯s former chair who initiated the inquiry in January, said it had exposed a ¡°culture of consequence-free rotten failure¡± in university leadership.

¡°Widespread failures in transparency, accountability and integrity¡± had contributed to ¡°damaging¡± restructures, ¡°wage theft¡±, ¡°distrust¡± within university communities and ¡°a growing sense of abandonment¡± among students, he said.

¡°There¡¯s no other sector in the country where failure is rewarded so handsomely and with so little scrutiny,¡± Sheldon said.

The committee, now chaired by Senator Marielle Smith, is due to hand down its final report in December and plans to hold more public hearings before doing so.

In August, the committee heard explosive bullying allegations against Australian National University (ANU) chancellor Julie Bishop, a former foreign affairs and education minister. Demographer Liz Allen, who had been a staff-elected member of the ANU council, tearfully accused Bishop of exercising ¡°godlike powers¡± in a ¡°dysfunctional and toxic¡± council.

Bishop has categorically denied the allegations in a 25-page letter which criticises the committee for undermining ¡°procedural fairness¡± and jeopardising witnesses¡¯ ¡°psychosocial safety¡±, by not arranging to hear the evidence in ¡°private session¡± despite likely having advance warning of the content.

¡°The witness was evidently deeply distressed and spoke specifically about suicidal ideation and a miscarriage,¡± the letter says. ¡°I am concerned that appropriate trauma-informed principles were not applied in relation to her testimony.¡±

Smith rejected the criticism in a letter to Bishop. ¡°The committee was not aware of the detail of Dr Allen¡¯s testimony in advance,¡± it says. ¡°Dr Allen did not provide her opening statement¡­prior to the hearing.¡±

Bishop said she presided over a ¡°respectful and collegiate¡± council where ¡°each member is treated with courtesy and civility as a valued contributor¡±. But the committee said it had heard little evidence of ¡°positive experiences¡± among staff and student representatives on university governing bodies.

The interim report cites evidence of ¡°demeaning¡± and ¡°tokenistic¡± behaviour towards elected members, with students¡¯ concerns treated as a ¡°joke¡± and staff representatives viewed with ¡°distrust¡±. They were denied papers, vetoed from subcommittees, excluded from parts of meetings and prevented from speaking out or adding to meeting agendas.

Some staff representatives feared ¡°adverse consequences¡± for their employment and careers, in atmospheres of ¡°hostility¡± and ¡°retribution¡±, the report says.

Sheldon said the committee had uncovered a ¡°stark divide¡± in the sector. ¡°University executives claimed that existing governance systems were largely sufficient and required no major changes. Staff, students, academics and other stakeholders painted a very different picture of structural chaos.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com