We invite you to explore the key milestones, stories and personalities of our history in our 125 Years Timeline. We also invite you toShare your story and become part of our digital history.
Our era (1990-2015) opens with the publication of the University History to commemorate the Centenary of the University of Tasmania. Covering the era 1890-1990 it reflects on both the achievements of the University and its political culture. In doing this it notes how in 1980 a ‘democratic impetus’ increased the University Council from 21 to 31 members, academic staff representation was increased from three to six, students were allowed to elect two members instead of one, whilst a third student member was included as President of the Tasmanian University Union[i]. At the same time four members were then elected by the ‘Convocation’ of graduates of the University. Such reform exorcised the last ghosts of the Orr case (which had originated with a precipitate decision by a former, much less representative Council), and this ‘democratic’ renewal of the University's constitution was demonstrated in the University Act of 1980 and Statutes in various ways which had been matured during the Vice-Chancellorship of Professor David Caro, Vice-Chancellor 1978-1982. The Professorial Board (which has since been succeeded by the Academic Senate) had the responsibility ‘for the allocation of resources for academic activities’, Deans were elected by the membership of the Faculties[ii]; Heads of Departments (now known as Schools) were appointed by election of academic staff (subject to formal confirmation by the Vice Chancellor)[iii] and all such Heads were ex officio members of the Professorial Board. At the same time all Professors were ex officio members of the Professorial Board as were the elected members of the University Council referred to above. All these provisions ensured a healthy infusion of democratic culture and intellectual authority in the governance of the University of Tasmania.
As with all Australian universities, such an inclusive system of governance was to be radically attenuated by Federal intervention in University governance over the period 1987-90. This intervention, formally described as the creation of a 'Unified National System'[iv] of Australian universities, was unequivocal in its assault on university governance. In the 1987 Green Paper, Higher Education a policy discussion paper December 1987, issued by the then Minister of Education, J S Dawkins, it was declared ‘it is difficult to justify election among academic colleagues as an acceptable system of management. Increased emphasis must be placed on the development of managerial skills at the middle and senior levels of management.’ Whilst the Minister archly declared that ‘it is not appropriate for it [Government] to dictate internal management structures, nonetheless there should be reviews of these structures[v] and such reviews should consider the development of ‘strong managerial modes of operation by removing the barriers to delegation of policy implementation from governing bodies to chief executive officers’[vi]. Whilst such ‘barriers’ might equally be described as the democratic constraints inherent in free autonomous academic institutions, these recommendations, reinforced by their alliance with the recommendation of the new HECS funding system[vii], and the encouragement of institutional amalgamation, might be said to have been fulfilled in execution beyond expectation, and in spite of assurances of institutional autonomy, the force of these managerial recommendations continue down to the present day
At the University of Tasmania the adoption of this managerial culture was both facilitated and accelerated by the amalgamation of the university with the former Tasmanian Institute of Technology (TSIT) at Launceston. This amalgamation involved the drafting of a new University Act to incorporate both institutions; inevitably it differed radically from the 'democratic' University act referred to above. Though the new amalgamated university was substantially larger than the original university, and was stretched across the state, the Council was substantially reduced by some 20% to 24 members. Academic representation was reduced from 6 to 5, convocation (or alumni) representation was reduced 4 to 3, and student representation reduced from a maxim of three to two whilst government appointments were also reduced. Whilst this was a drastic reduction, more drastic attenuations were to follow. In 2001 the University Council was reduced again, to 18 members, academic representation was reduced to three whilst the direct elective representation of Alumni (formerly four members) was abolished altogether although an indirectly elected presence was preserved by the ex-officio membership of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Alumni. However even this indirectly elective membership of Alumni was altogether excised in 2005. Despite protest, (see below) this diminution of Council has continued, with the University Council being further reduced in 2012-13, to a maximum of fourteen members, with only one directly elected academic staff member and one elected student member.
Over the period, diminution of the representative character of the council was matched by further attenuations in participative governance in the spirit of the ‘strong managerial modes of operation’ recommended by the interventionist Federal Government. The Academic Senate, the successor body to the Professorial Board, was no longer endowed with the power of the ‘allocation of resources for academic activities’; this very significant power being reserved to the university administration, though for a period Senate could comment on budgets developed by the administration, a very significant diminution. Senate did have (and still retains) the responsibility of advising ‘Council on all academic matters relating to the university’ and endorsing academic proposals by the Faculties. Meanwhile its membership diminished and fluctuated. Its ex-officio Professorial membership was abolished, another very significant diminution of academic authority, but membership did include Heads of schools and disciplines (some 20 in 2001) and 15 elected members of academic staff, as well as the Deans of the Faculties, Chairs of the Degree Boards, the Presidents of the Tasmanian Union Inc., the Student Association Inc. and the University Post-graduate Association, and the senior university administrative officers such as the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and the Pro-Vice-Chancellors (then two). Though diminished in power and membership (compared to the Professorial Board), Senate still remained an effective debating body. Meanwhile other elective institutions in the university were either diminished or eliminated. The important office of elected academic dean was checked by the creation of a new matching officer the Executive Dean, appointed by Council on the advice of the Vice-Chancellor with effective responsibility for resource matters[viii]. Then in 1997-8 the office of (elected) Academic Dean was abolished, to be replaced by a Dean of Faculty formally appointed by Council[ix]. A similar fate befell the Headships of Departments, formerly elected by members of academic staff (see above). Initially the headship protocol was ingeniously re-worded to read that appointment of head should be subject to the condition that ‘the full-time staff of the Department have had a reasonable opportunity to recommend a nominee’[x]. This compromise formula was however dispensed with in 1998-9 (after some protracted debate in the Academic Senate, see below) and the Head of School subsequently was to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the advice of the Dean[xi]. A similar fate eventually overtook the elected Heads of the Degree Boards, which were formed within the Faculties to provide advice to the Dean (in the post academic Dean era) on courses and other studies in the Faculties, including course duration and content, entry requirements and academic assessment. Both the elective chairpersons and the Boards themselves were abolished at the end of 2002, and such matters were decided (again) by the Faculties under the management of the appointed Dean. At this time the long existing right of the membership of the Faculty to consider and advise course approvals to Senate and elsewhere (which had been continued during the era of the Degree Boards) was abolished and staff were only allowed the right ‘to comment’ on course, and other proposals, emanating from the Faculty Executive, rather than approve or disallow them[xii].
Unsurprisingly, as with other Australian universities, this radical attenuation of academic governance aroused considerable controversy and opposition within the university. The final abolition of elective headships occasioned vigorous debates in Academic Senate over two meetings: abolition being deferred by one vote in the first meeting before being carried through in a succeeding meeting in 1998-9. Similarly with the abolition of elective academic deans (who for a period had co-existed with Executive Deans) there was a spirited debate in the Faculty of Arts where a move to have abolition accepted without debate or vote, was defeated and the matter was debated, though in the end the Faculty did vote to excise its power of appointing academic deans by election. These diminutions of an elective culture notwithstanding, nevertheless the elective tradition was continued through the elective chairpersons of the Degree Boards, bodies established to advise the Dean (now appointed) on ‘course duration. content and structure entry requirements and academic assessments relating to the courses and other studies’[xiii]. In those boards the principle of ensuring academic coherence through the ‘re-structuring’ or amalgamation of departments was both exhaustively debated and largely sustained through the 1990s until their abolition at the end of 2002. Such amalgamations nevertheless were not without controversy. Early in the period (1994) the Department of Classics was reviewed favourably with a recommendation that the chair be filled with appointment of new Professor to bring vigour to the Department. In the event this was never done, and indeed an administrative move was initiated to amalgamate Classics with some other department. This was vigorously resisted not least by students who staged protests and indeed carried off the Vice-Chancellor's official chair from the Council room, declaring it would not be returned until their own chair of classics was filled! In the event the autonomy of Classics was affirmed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Day and though subsequently it was ‘grouped’ with History in the Department (later School) of History & Classics its academic autonomy was very substantially preserved, thanks to the earlier defence. A more controversial episode was the closure of the discipline of Italian in the then department of modern languages. This was eventually done though the Head of Italian Dr Flonta, had both been commended in the University Report for establishing an electronic journal, and had been successful in securing the offer, from the Italian Government, of the funding of the appointment of an additional, tenured lecturer to the Discipline. The retention of Italian was supported by a resolution from the Faculty of Arts, and the issue received considerable newspaper publicity. In the event however the discipline of Italian was dis-established by a majority vote of the University Council.
Up to the year 2000, the University Administration had, overall, been successful in implementing the Executive management of Universities recommended in the Federal Government Green paper of 1987 referred to above, though as indicated, there had been significant opposition to these changes. In 2000 however there were surprising developments. Advice from the University that the membership of the University Council might be further, significantly, reduced, and initially, allowing only a limited period for comment, stimulated well attended meetings of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) on both campuses calling for further meetings to debate confidence in the management of the university. These meetings were held on May 30 (northern campus) and May 31 2000 (southern campus). 105 members attended these meetings which carried unanimously (with one abstention), motions of no-confidence in the management of the University of Tasmania. Two motions were passed, they read:
1. ‘That NTEU members condemn the present decision making process in the University and so request the Chancellor take urgent action to ensure that new open and consultative decision making processes are implemented as a matter of urgency’.
2. ‘NTEU members have no confidence in the current Vice-Chancellor of the university in respect of
(a) continued failure to provide adequate mechanisms for consultation in relation to the structure and activities of the university including changes to University Council; changes to the role, structure and location of schools, faculties and degree programs;
(b) a climate of distrust that prevents necessary and useful public debate about the role and functioning of the University;
(c.) An ad hoc decision making process which undermines the achievement of any long-term vision for the University as an academic institution.’[xiv]
These motions attracted considerable publicity which contributed to a momentum for reform through the various bodies of the University leading to the establishment, by the University Council in November 2000, of a Review Panel to produce a Report on the 'Review of Administration and Policy-making Processes of the University of Tasmania'. This independent panel consisted of Professor C Boris Schedvin, formerly Deputy-Vice Chancellor University of Melbourne, Professor Edwina Cornish, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Adelaide, Dr Dan Norton, Consultant and Company Director, Hobart, Tasmania and Professor John Sizer, Chief Executive, Scottish Funding Councils for Further Education, Edinburgh. This panel's report, University of Tasmania Report of the Administrative and Policy Making Processes (Hobart 2001) was delivered on 9 May 2001. Whilst generally endorsing the new management culture referred to above it was highly critical of its particular iteration in the University of Tasmania. It noted among a list of twelve points of ‘Current Weakness’: ‘A lack of transparency in strategic and financial and planning processes; a lack of cohesion between the leadership of the University and the wider university community, including a decline in collegiality, and an internal organization structure that is unstable, does not match financial devolution with academic responsibility and is not accepted by many senior academic staff.’[xv]
The report then expressed these concerns in some detail, noting ‘There is concern that the hierarchical approach of senior management has been driven by a lack of confidence in middle management which in turn has led the university to lose confidence in senior management. There is also concern about a lack of transparency and a breakdown in collegiality. The Panel is well aware, that especially in a university, complaints of this kind need to be interpreted with caution; but it was satisfied that it was dealing with much more than the normal undercurrent of discontent. As described previously the management style is a traditional line management model: hierarchical and reliant on a high level of central control. Management has a preoccupation with detail at the expense of effective strategic management and an underlying suspicion of subordinates. There appears to be a limited consultation and a tendency to rely on authority’ [xvi]. As a partial remedy to this disturbing situation a particular emphasis was directed toward the Academic Senate. It was noted that ‘The Academic Senate or equivalent body plays a crucial role in any university of high standing’, and that ‘The Academic Senate has among its more intangible roles support for and protection of the collegial culture of the university’.[xvii] To this end it recommended an expansion of the Academic Senate to include all heads of school, as well as of all Professors and the election of 5-8 non professorial staff. The review anticipated some objection to these reforms on the grounds that Senate might become ‘too large and unwieldy’ but pressed ‘the argument in favour of inclusiveness on the urgent need to strengthen collegiality’[xviii].
In the short term, the Review of the Administration and Policy-making Processes did achieve a decisive win for collegiality, in the following years it was expanded to around 100 members, including all the Heads of schools, 20 elected Professors, 20 elected members of non-Professorial academic staff. This was an important victory for collegiality, leading to fruitful and productive academic debates in Senate in the best university traditions. Whilst this may have irritated the more executively minded members of management, it is important to note that, in 2006, The Chancellor of the University expressed his support for ‘maintaining the current size of Academic Senate and its representative capacity and strength’[xix]. In 2008 indeed a motion was carried for the establishment of an Academic Charter of Governance, which, if yet to be fully fulfilled, did mark an encouraging resurgence of the movement for academic sovereignty.
Since that time there has been something of a recession in the democratic culture of the University. The provision for 20 elected Professors was abolished in 2010-2011, and the subsequently the elected membership of academic staff has been reduced to 12 though this decline has to a degree been balanced by the development of Faculty Board chairpersons (see below); nevertheless the Senate has overall been reduced in 2015 (after the expiration of the terms of previously elected members) to some 56 members, a far cry from the 100 or more members during the high tide of collegiality. At the same time the representation of disciplines on the Senate has been much reduced by the recent re-structuring of such disciplines into larger schools thus significantly attenuating the representative culture recommended by the 2001 Review of Administration in its argument for enhanced collegiality. The restoration of elected Heads of Schools and Deans of Faculties still seems improbably remote, as does the restoration of the former sovereignty of the membership of the Faculties. The University Council remains at less than half its membership in 1989-90, with only one directly elected academic staff representative instead of 6, and no representatives elected by the Alumni at all. Inevitably these developments have encouraged a climate conducive to a return of that style of management criticised by the previous 2001 Review as ‘hierarchical and reliant on a high level of central control, rather than one encouraging decision making through academic sovereignty.
Despite this re-assertion of the hierarchical management commented on by the 2001 review, there are still hopes for the restoration of that collegial culture that review referred to. The review itself should be re-visited to establish how far its recommendations have have been implemented or endured. More promisingly, in the recent re-structuring of Schools, articulated concerns about the future of disciplines have been met, at least to a degree. Whilst many Disciplines are no longer directly represented on Academic Senate as recommended by the 2001 Review, Faculty Boards have been formed consisting of Heads of Discipline; these boards do consider disciplinary concerns and the chairperson of each Board is ex-officio a member of Senate. This is a welcome move in a collegial direction and some collegial momentum has resulted, but much still needs to be achieved.
More promising still has been the University's recent (2012) adherence to the ‘Magna Charta Universitatum’ which has many European Universities as signatories. In this document it is asserted and agreed ('Fundamental principle 1') that ‘The university is an autonomous institution at the heart of societies differently organized because of geography and historical heritage; it produces, examines, appraises and hands down culture by research and teaching. To meet the needs of the world around it, its research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power’.
The ‘moral and intellectual independence’ referred to can only be achieved by the restoration of the academic sovereignty this and other universities enjoyed before the Government inspired interventions of 1987, and later, referred to above. Such a restoration of academic sovereignty, particularly restoration of the authority for ‘the allocation of resources for academic activities’ to the Academic Senate, as was previously enjoyed by the previous Professorial Board, would be a massive step in the right direction, as would be the restoration of the other academic functions and processes referred to above. It is only by the restoration of Academic Sovereignty in this university, and others, can the best fruits of truly free academic activity be enjoyed by staff and students in the academic community, and by citizens in the wider world beyond it.
[i] R Davis, Open to Talent The Centenary History of the University of Tasmania 1890-1990, Hobart 1990, p 200.
[ii] University of Tasmania Calendar 1988-89, pp 26, 31.
[iii]University of Tasmania Calendar, p 64.
[iv] J S Dawkins, Higher Education : a policy discussion paper, December 1987, p 27.
[v] Dawkins, p 51.
[vi] Dawkins, p 52.
[vii] Dawkins, p 87.
[viii] University Calendar 1997, pp 34-5.
[ix] University Calendar 2001, p 77.
[x] University Calendar 1997, p 31.
[xi] University Calendar 2001, p 99.
[xii] For the attenuation of the right to 'consider and advise' to the lesser power of 'comment', see University Calendar 1997, pp 30-31 and University Calendar 2001, pp 77-78).
[xiii] University Calendar 2001, pp 77-8.
[xiv]For this text see also North & South NTEU Tasmanian Division Newsletter Semester 2, 2010, p 3.
[xv] University of Tasmania Report of the Administrative and Policy Making Processes, (Hobart 2001), p 8.
[xvi] University of Tasmania Report, p 15.
[xvii] University of Tasmania Report, p 21.
[xviii] University of Tasmania Report, p 22.
[xix] Academic Senate Minutes, University of Tasmania 2 March 2007, p 6.
About the author: Peter Chapman is Associate Professor in History and General Editor of Historical Records of Australia. He has been an elected member of Academic Senate from 1998-99 and 2000-08. He has served as President of the University Club Inc in 1998-2000 and was Vice-President of the University of Tasmania Division of the NTEU, 1996-2004, and Acting President and President of the Division in 2004-08 and 2010-11.
