Australian universities are battling to maintain their autonomy in the face of escalating government interference ¨C including potential bans on collaborations with universities that lack autonomy from foreign governments.

Academics say it is ironic that the new foreign relations law has come into force amid a plethora of government interventions such as a new free speech code, research grant vetoes and security measures.

Griffith University vice-chancellor Carolyn Evans said that the new law, which allows Canberra to ban universities¡¯ dealings with overseas institutions, showed how governments themselves could jeopardise academic freedom.

¡°The notion that academics need permission from the government to co-author with [someone] from a foreign country, to co-supervise a PhD, potentially to organise a seminar or workshop ¨C that¡¯s a very serious intrusion,¡± Professor Evans said.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The law, which passed parliament in December, requires universities to notify Canberra about deals with partner institutions that lack ¡°institutional autonomy¡± because a foreign government is ¡°in a position to exercise substantial control¡±.

Meanwhile, an analysis of new funding agreements suggests that Australian universities are being enlisted to deliver the government¡¯s political objectives through ¡°one-sided¡± arrangements that give bureaucrats too much discretionary power.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The?, by Australian National University policy expert Andrew Norton, found that the three-year funding agreements ¨C the first since last year¡¯s Job-ready Graduates reforms ¨C were bloated with ¡°background information¡± about principles such as ¡°quality¡± and ¡°public interest¡±. This left administrators scratching their heads over what parts of the agreements were legally enforceable, and what were simply attempts to exploit universities¡¯ ¡°culture of compliance¡±.

An education department spokesman said that the agreement template had been ¡°revised¡± to provide ¡°a non-binding summary of the core elements of the funding relationship between the commonwealth and each institution¡±. The ¡°background sections¡± had been included to help universities understand their ¡°key funding streams¡± and were ¡°not intended to be legally enforceable¡±.

But Professor Norton said that the new approach left universities battling uncertainty, with important funding conditions or criteria not specified in legal documentation and civil servants ¡°given wide scope to interpret vague terms¡±. It also allowed for policy decisions to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

He said that university funding agreements should be reserved for matters that ¡°genuinely¡± needed to be decided between universities and government, ¡°and not as a regulatory tool to bypass the parliament¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Norton cited Canberra¡¯s model?free speech code?as another example of overreach. The government was insisting on its adoption even before a recently passed bill gave it the legal authority to do so ¨C and arguably, the new law still did not empower the government to force universities to adopt particular wordings of their free speech policies.

¡°The government [is] going beyond its statutory authority in pushing universities to do things,¡± he said. ¡°The level of red tape intervention has escalated enormously over the past few years. Universities go along with these things because they¡¯re so dependent on the commonwealth.¡±

University of the Sunshine Coast vice-chancellor Helen Bartlett said that government intervention in universities¡¯ operations had escalated in recent years, largely driven by ¡°community sentiment¡±. She predicted that the trend would continue with a crackdown on universities¡¯ financial reliance on international students ¨C notwithstanding that the government itself had encouraged development of that income stream.

¡°The government is going to want to see universities demonstrating that they are not exposed to such risk ever again,¡± she said.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com