Mr Marcus Spencer on behalf of Ms Janet White

Mr Nigel Wood on behalf of Mr Don Gregg

Associate Professor Arthur de Bono and Professor Bernard Hoffert (Faculty of Art and Design)

Professor Gary Bouma and Professor Barbara Caine (Faulty of Arts)

Professor Owen Hughes, Professor Val Clulow and Professor Julian Teicher (Faculty of Business and Economics)

Dr Barbara Clarke (Faculty of Education)

Professor Bill Young and Professor Martin Rhodes (Faculty of Engineering)

Professor Christine Mingins and Associate Professor Graham Farr (Faculty of Information Technology)

Professor Warwick Anderson, Professor Nip Thomson and Professor Grahame Coleman (Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences)

Associate Professor Alan Pryde and Dr Ian Cartwright (Faculty of Science)

Appointment of the Vice-President Finance/Chief Financial Officer was in its final stages, and an announcement would be made within the next few weeks. The position had attracted a number of outstanding applicants.

Professor Tyrone Pretorius had commenced his appointment as Pro Vice-Chancellor (South Africa). Professor Pretorius was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of the Western Cape, and very highly regarded throughout the South African higher education sector. His appointment was regarded as a coup for Monash.

Professor John Anderson would return to Monash in the position of Pro Vice-Chancellor (Business and Industry) – this position was charged with responsibility for building relationships with the business and industry communities.

Members were also advised that the University had recently received a significant donation to endow a Chair in Modern Israel Studies.

Planning for a more coherent marketing strategy for both international and local students was underway.

Latest developments in the passage of the legislation indicated, however, that the issue might not be completely settled, given the reported discomfort by Nationals’ senators with the legislation in its present form.

Despite this, it was necessary to prepare for the impact of the legislation in its current form. Accordingly, an analysis of the apportionment of amenities fees (totalling $13.8 million at Monash) was being undertaken in conjunction with the student associations. This analysis (which was a very complex exercise, given the wide variety of activities supported by student amenities fees) encompassed:

1. Those services which were core aspects of student life (which the university would fund from its budget).
2. Those services which were opt in/out.
3. Those services accessible on a user pays basis.

The core Monash position was that the payment of amenities fees was an integral part of broadening the educational experience and improving student life on campus.

Another crucial issue was the potential loss of jobs e.g. 19 at Gippsland.

In discussion, members observed that:

1. Student views on VSU were mixed, as were the positions of student associations.
2. When debating the philosophy of compulsory fees and charges, a parallel could be drawn between payment of amenities fees by students for services which all students did not access, and payment of rates and taxes for services which were not accessed by all rate/taxpayers.
3. There was likely to be an expectation on the part of students that the university would provide some of the services lost through introduction of VSU.
4. The West Australian experience indicated that with active marketing about 30% of students would voluntarily continue to belong to student associations.

The attitude of the South African Education Department to enrolments at the campus had also undergone change – the previously-imposed enrolment limit of 800 was now subject to negotiation on an annual basis. This would be relevant given further increases in student numbers expected after the mid-year intake.

In response to a question regarding the extent of postgraduate offerings at the South African campus, members were advised that:

1. Postgraduate coursework qualifications in accounting were offered, with 30-40 students enrolled overall. Marked growth in this area was expected.
2. There was considerable interest in development of thematic research activity and offering of research higher degrees by the South African campus.

He explained that the drivers for the project had been twofold – the review of the legal compliance framework commissioned by Council, and the lack of adequate demarcation of the role of Heads of Cost Centres in the compliance process. He also explained that the project would lead to a new certification process, and that the University would move to a July-June cycle.

He described the four project objectives:

1. Improving corporate governance.
2. Shifting the compliance focus.
3. Improving management of risks.
4. Assistance to Heads in managing compliance.

He explained that the certification form had been streamlined and now required yes/no responses, with further action necessary in the event of a ‘no’ response; hyperlinks in the form would direct respondents to supporting documentation.

Mr Thorburn outlined the four sets of supporting documentation:

1. The revised Monash University Legal Compliance Policy.
2. Explanatory guidelines.
3. Compilation of legal compliance policies and responsible officers.
4. Generic legal compliance risk register.

He indicated that consultation with Legal Compliance Officers and Heads of Cost Centres was underway; information sessions would be held May-June; implementation of the process would commence from June.

In complimenting Mr Thorburn on the results of the project, the Chair emphasised the importance of the compliance process and indicated that the challenge had been to weave compliance officer expertise with line management responsibilities. He noted that the process depended on an hierarchical form of reporting that assured Deans/Directors that compliance responsibilities had been met and that sign-off was meaningful.

In response to questions regarding management and monitoring of compliance processes, Mr Thorburn responded that:

1. It was expected that those personnel supporting the Head of the Cost Centre in day-to-day activities would be able to handle compliance-related responsibilities, as these could be integrated with other activities.
2. The documentation provided examples of appropriate monitoring – requisite actions were driven by assessment of the likelihood and impact of non-compliance.
3. All staff had the responsibility to comply with relevant legislation – courses run by Mr Paul Barton provided appropriate training.

In discussion, members commented that:

• The revised process would provide a more genuine response.
• The revised documentation would assist Heads of Cost Centres in establishing risk management-related priorities.

He explained that one of the functions of the Conference was to establish priorities for the following year – those arising from the latest Conference (the first four of which were derived directly from Monash 2025) had been endorsed by Council and were as follows:

• Monash Mobility Program – this would draw together various staff and student schemes encouraging study/teaching/research at other campuses/universities.
• Increasing research engagement - the report of the Research and Research Management Review would be submitted to SMC for approval at its April meeting. Some recommendations would be implemented immediately, others at a later stage.
• Improving the Monash student experience – Monash aimed to offer a high-quality campus experience. However, it was necessary to improve the student experience overall (i.e. on and off-campus) to compete in the student market and in view of decreasing Federal funding. Introduction of VSU was an issue relevant to this area.
• Attracting the most talented students irrespective of means and circumstances – an equity initiative, this priority originated both from principle (student selection and support based on achievement and potential) and pragmatism (Government pressure and openness to external scrutiny of admissions practices).
• Implementing an Information Management Strategy – an ITS project arising from the need to significantly improve University-wide systems, this project was already well-developed and funded. Implementation would commence next year.

Professor Parker indicated that Faculty Operational Plans examined to date had picked up themes in the annual priorities and woven them into their strategies. This was a pleasing development.

The Chair then announced the introduction of the Vice-Chancellor’s Equity and Diversity Awards (for which a paper was tabled), and encouraged staff to consider ways of retaining and supporting students from equity groups. He also reminded members that the Monash Access Program, piloted during 2005, would be fully implemented from 2006.

Members discussed the need to encourage indigenous students to Monash, and noted the following:

1. The Faculty of Arts scheme, which enrolled indigenous students with inadequate ENTERs into two non-award subjects in Semester 1 (free of charge) and subsequent standard admission in Semester 2. Other Faculties were being encouraged to adopt this model.
2. The successful introduction of the Indigenous Scholarship Scheme in the Faculty of Education. The proportion of indigenous students enrolled in the Faculty now exceeded the indigenous proportion of the population at large.
3. Employment of an Indigenous Employment Officer by the Equity and Diversity Centre, who also offered career development and mentoring.
4. The University’s policy requiring initial referral of general staff positions up to and including HEW 5 to the Equity and Diversity Centre for advice as to whether a potential indigenous candidate was available for interview.

Professor Parker referred to the University’s guidelines for academic review, noting that these required academic unit reviews at least every five years. CHEQ had records of a number of reviews and planned reviews, however Faculties would also be asked to provide relevant information during the Faculty Operational Plan visits.

Members discussed the arrangements for preparing the Portfolio and were advised that:

1. The Monash Quality Network (MQN) would play a key role as the University’s AUQA Reference Group.
2. A Portfolio template had been prepared.
3. Drafts of the Portfolio (or sections thereof) would be distributed for comment.
4. Professor Webb and Ms Harris would be consulting widely on the information required.

Members were also advised that:

1. As part of the audit, AUQA adopted a sampling method (i.e. detailed attention to a representative number of faculties).
2. The Audit Panel would assess the Portfolio, on the basis of which it would determine areas for follow-up, and personnel to be interviewed.
3. The South African campus would be audited, in conjunction with the equivalent South African quality review. Any visit to the Malaysian campus was yet to be confirmed.
4. Support services could be reviewed, as they were crucial to the functioning of the university.
5. Parity of services across a multi-campus university might also be an issue for Monash.

Ms Daroesman reported that this matter was on the agenda for the forthcoming Go8 DVC Research meeting and was also being considered by the G08 Research Directors Committee.

Emphasising the importance of this issue, the Chair undertook to raise it at the next AVCC Board meeting.

11August

06 October

24 November