Australian universities face tougher regulatory standards

Public universities could be required to meet tougher regulatory standards than their private counterparts, under new proposals from an Australian advisory group.

A Higher Education Standards Panel (Hesp) discussion paper published on 27 February canvasses options to effect recommendations from a plethora of reviews including the Australian Universities Accord, the Expert Council on University Governance, the parallel Senate committee inquiry into university governance and the Australian Human Rights Commission’s analysis of racism on campuses.

The new paper flags changes to the “threshold standards” which contain the minimum regulatory requirements for higher education institutions. The threshold standards came into effect in mid-2021 and have not been updated in more than four years – a period in which the sector has been under an intense spotlight, particularly over student welfare and governance.

On the expert council’s urging, the federal government agreed to insert eight new “governance principles” into the threshold standards. Canberra also flagged new requirements for universities to report their spending on consultants, the composition of their governing bodies and the outcomes of governing council meetings.

The government will also require universities to disclose vice-chancellors’ moonlighting jobs and report executive pay as thoroughly as publicly listed companies. The Hesp is considering whether all these changes require a whole new section, “Part C”, in the threshold standards.

Part C would only apply to public universities, which have no shareholder oversight and are not required to comply with stock market corporate governance principles, the discussion paper explains. “What are the advantages and risks of having some standards apply only to public universities?” it asks.

The paper also canvasses options to make universities show that they are “taking action against racism”, as demanded by education minister Jason Clare.

The government’s response to the report from Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, included a promise of regulation requiring institutional commitments to address racism. In mid-February, Clare said this would be pursued through a change to the threshold standards.

The standards already require institutions to foster safety and well-being and treat people equitably. But “there is no specific requirement to demonstrate a commitment to addressing racism, extremism and prejudice”, the paper explains.

“Incorporating an explicit anti-racism commitment into the threshold standards would…align higher education regulatory settings to sector and community values. It would also ensure Teqsa [the higher education regulator] can more clearly monitor compliance.”

Anti-racism requirements could be “adopted as a specific standard or embedded across multiple existing clauses”, the paper says.

It also canvasses “more explicit” requirements to meet the “reasonable support needs” of students with disabilities, and to replace “outmoded” terminology in the standards. This follows widespread complaints that the Universities Accord’s treatment of disability was superficial and error-prone.

The paper proposes changing the threshold standards to embed universal design principles. “Requiring inclusiveness from the outset…meets the needs of the largest number of students, [which] would in turn reduce the need for tailored supports,” the paper says.

Panel member Paul Harpur, a University of Queensland law professor, said the proposals illustrated the “momentum” of the disability community’s campaign for educational justice.

“[We have] had years of work to get to this point,” Harpur said. “Hundreds of people…contributed their time and effort. It’s really going to open up opportunities for all Australians, because it creates a university which is as universally designed as you can get.”

The paper mulls changes to address “emerging technology risks”, particularly around generative artificial intelligence. It also seeks suggestions on how to undertake regular reviews of the standards. The deadline for responses is 18 March.  

The paper could be the last hurrah for the Hesp, whose functions will be absorbed by the Australian Tertiary Education Commission if legislation passes parliament in its current form.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com