1. IAU/IAUP Presidents’ Symposium
on
Institutional Autonomy Revisited:
National Dimensions, Cross regional/national Experiences
‘Autonomy justified - efficiency and effectiveness; and
Autonomy accounted for – responsibility’
Professor Ingrid Moses
Chancellor, University of Canberra (2006- )
Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of New England (1997-2006)
Australia
CRICOS #00212K

2. 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

3. 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

4. QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Averages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Authority to Intervene
CRICOS #00212K

5. Singapore
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
QuickTime™ and a
Russia TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Sweden
Thailand
Japan
USA
Canada
Averages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Actually Exerting Influence
CRICOS #00212K

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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