The umbrella body representing Australia¡¯s universities could be governed by somebody from outside the sector, in the first significant shake-up of Universities Australia (UA) since its 2007 evolution from the Australian Vice-Chancellors¡¯ Committee (AVCC).

And university chancellors could be drafted on to UA¡¯s board, even chairing it, under recommendations from a review by education consultants PhillipsKPA.

At present, the board consists of eight vice-chancellors along with UA¡¯s chief executive. The consultants have urged the organisation to consider appointing independent board members and a ¡°non-executive independent chair¡±, and to explore mechanisms for ¡°enhanced consultation and engagement with chancellors¡±, according to a UA statement summarising the recommendations.

Other suggestions include strengthening UA¡¯s ¡°forward-looking policy development¡± beyond the three-year electoral cycle, and extending the organisation¡¯s ¡°advocacy strategy¡± to ¡°matters of broader national significance where universities can make an important contribution¡± ¨C although?Times Higher Education?understands there is little appetite among vice-chancellors or chancellors to lobby on issues outside core university business.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The review was reportedly triggered by chancellors¡¯ fury with UA¡¯s perceived lack of political cut-through, demonstrated in setbacks like universities¡¯ failure to obtain eligibility for the JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme or support for international education during the pandemic.

According to?The Australian?newspaper, the dispute escalated after a 2019 joint meeting of vice-chancellors and chancellors was called off at the last minute. The meeting had been scheduled a few days after the May 2019 election, when the Coalition government retained power ¨C surprising many Australians and particularly UA, which had not prepared for the government¡¯s return.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The chancellors, who include former political, civil service and business leaders, were reportedly appalled at this oversight. The resulting disquiet eventually led UA to commission a major review of itself last December.

UA described the review as a ¡°health check¡±. Chair Deborah Terry said the organisation had not been reviewed for about 15 years, and the new evaluation was ¡°absolutely appropriate¡± given the time elapsed.

¡°[It will] do exactly what a major review should do: ensure that all of our structures and the way we do things are absolutely fit for purpose, [so] that our peak body that represents this country¡¯s 39 universities is as effective as possible,¡± she told the National Press Club in March.

The University Chancellors Council said it had been briefed about the review¡¯s findings. ¡°Chancellors appreciate the enhanced engagement between us and will discuss the review findings over coming weeks,¡± said chair Stephen Gerlach. ¡°[We] look forward to further consulting with UA and vice-chancellors in that regard in due course.¡±

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The consultations are expected to take months. UA is not releasing the PhillipsKPA report, regarding it as a conversation starter rather than a fully fledged set of proposals ¨C unlike the consultants¡¯ previous evaluation, in 2006, which precipitated the transition from AVCC to UA.

That??suggests that perceptions of the peak body have not changed much in the intervening period. It recounted a view on both sides of federal parliament that the AVCC was a ¡°negative organisation¡± and its dealings with government were characterised by ¡°political naivety¡± and ¡°whingeing self-interest¡±.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com