Administrative Heads Group Meeting 1-2006

Professor Stephen Parker (Chair), Mr Bernd Abele, Ms Liz Anderson, Professor Gary Bouma, Dr Ian Cartwright, Mr Jack Chorowicz, Dr Barbara Clarke, Professor Grahame Coleman, Mr Robin Coventry, Ms Helen Dunne, Associate Professor Graham Farr, Ms Anne Fletcher, Ms Brenda Fortington, Ms Sue Gleeson, Mr Don Gregg, Ms Merilyn Harris, Ms Robyn Harris, Ms Pam Herman, Professor Bernard Hoffert, Professor Stephen Holdsworth, Mr Glenn Johnston, Ms Glenda Key, Mr Peter Lawford, Mr Peter Marshall, Professor David Murphy, Mr Geoffrey Murray, Mr David Pitt, Mr Vladimir Prpich, Professor Martin Rhodes, Professor James Sarros (for Professor Julian Teicher), Mr Ron Sawyer, Mr Steven Scroggie, Ms Bronwyn Shields, Mr Tim Stephens, Mr Nick Thorburn, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Marina Tseng (for Mr Ron Fairchild), Mr Clive Vernon, Ms Jenny Vero, Ms Sue Wales, Ms Janet White, Mr Ian Wilson, Ms Leah Zaks (for Ms Kay Gardner).

Apologies were received from

Professor Richard Larkins, Professor Barbara Caine, Professor Val Clulow, Mr Jeremy Du Ve, Mr Ron Fairchild, Ms Kay Gardner, Ms Cathryn Harrip, Professor Owen Hughes, Ms Marlene Mannays, Mr Terry Masocco, Professor Julian Teicher, Mr David Secomb, Professor Bill Young.

A welcome was extended to new members, Mr Glenn Johnston (Office of the University Solicitor) and Mr Tim Stephens (Director Finance and Resources, Gippsland campus).

Monash’s compliance documentation had been sent by DEST to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) for checking. Informal queries from regarding the adequacy of incentives offered to employees to take up AWAs had been made by DEWR.

Mr Marshall further indicated that a greater focus on encouraging universities to adopt AWAs was likely during the year.

• The VSU legislation had been passed by the Senate on its last sitting day in 2005 and would be implemented with effect from 1 July this year.
• The financial impact of the legislation on Monash would be in the range of $13.4 – 14 million annually, and would be felt across a wide range of services. The service funding shortfall in 2006 would be approximately $700,000.
• It was proposed that students continuing in Semester 2 be billed for their second fee instalment prior to 1 July; however, students enrolling after that date could not be charged amenities fees.
• Monyx was meeting with the student associations to assess options for continuing service provision under VSU. Once agreement had been reached on the processes required for transition to a VSU environment, such processes would be submitted to Council for approval.

Members discussed methods of obtaining student input on service needs. Mr Marshall advised that a survey would be administered within the next few weeks, asking students to identify which services they valued and for which services they would be willing to pay a fee. Tax deductible methods of funding, including contributions to building/library funds, were also discussed.

• A global email had been sent to all staff containing the confirmed audit timeline.
• The Australian component of the audit visit would take place during the week commencing 11 September.
• The audit panel would visit Malaysia, and might also visit a sample of Monash’s transnational partners.
• There would be six (6) panel members, comprising a mix of experienced and newer auditors. Composition of the HEQC panel was yet to be advised.

Members were also advised that preparations for the audit visits, including plans for a mock audit, were being confirmed. The recently released audit report for the University of Melbourne, which included an emphasis on internationalisation, was also noted.

• First round offers for Commonwealth supported places had risen by 3%, with ENTER scores on average holding steady.
• Second round offers had dipped slightly.
• After the first offer round, DEST had given the University permission to re-allocate a number of Gippsland places, most of which had been filled.
• There had been significant improvement in international numbers compared to the same time last year, with a 15% increase in offers. The conversion rate of offers to acceptances was also improving.
• On the whole, admissions figures were looking reasonable, although Gippsland and the Faculty of Information Technology were areas of concern.

Members canvassed a range of issues in subsequent discussion, including:

• The sector-wide downturn in numbers of students applying to attend regional universities.
• Absorption of a number of students from the Faculty of Information Technology by the Faculty of Business and Economics.
• The rigorous approach taken by DEST to funding clusters.
• Positive outlook for student numbers at the South African campus.
• Implications for the Gippsland campus, in view of the downturn both in local and international student numbers and likely withdrawal from the agreement with TMC. Members were advised that, inter alia, Monash had been lobbying hard for rural medical places to be allocated to the Gippsland campus.
• Encouraging developments for Monash College, with an increase in offers to new students of 10%.
• Increase in first and second round offers by the Faculty of Arts.

Members were also advised that a report on admissions would be made to Academic Board, with an update to the next meeting of the Group.

Implementation of a number of priorities identified by the Plan, including the Monash Mobility Scheme (which would be unveiled at the forthcoming Senior Management Summit), was already well underway.

It was also hoped that the Monash Annual Report would become more closely aligned with the University’s annual planning process.

In response to a member question, Professor Parker indicated that a long list of possible priorities for 2007 would be discussed at the Senior Management Summit, with a view to compressing them into a final four or five, which were likely to include a mix of continuity and change.

Features of Mr Pitt’s presentation included:

• Explanation of the context in which the Budget had been developed, including improvements in Monash’s international markets, increased competition between providers of tertiary education, the need to support key strategic directions, infrastructure funding and the impact of the Enterprise Bargain.
• A summary of the Budget’s Key Indicators for 2006, including total revenue and operating result, planned borrowings, interest cover and debt to equity ratio.
• Budgeted growth in the safety margin over 2006-2008 and emphasis on the importance of an adequate operating result (budgeted $30.1 million), which provided the capacity to support the University’s growth, and serviced borrowings for capital infrastructure.
• Allocation of approximately half of the operating result to capital works. Within the capital works program, a balance between new building and refurbishment would be sought. VCG (Property), a new sub-group of VCG, had been established to oversee longer-term capital works development.
• Explanation of the contribution of controlled entities and group profit (budgeted at $29.8 million).
• Strategies to further develop the budget process over the coming years, including review of early indicators; high-level mid-year discussion on progress to date and outlook for the following year; and sharing of over-budget performance.
• Strategies planned to improve efficiency and performance including improving income and advancement opportunities; making savings in areas such as communications and power; review of external activities (Monash Commercial); review of internally provided services; and better use of available financial data and tools.

Subsequent discussion canvassed a range of issues, including:

• The need to ensure a balance of sources, term and type of borrowings.
• Given that the interest rates applicable to Monash borrowings were largely based on the lowest bank rate (plus a margin), a rise in rates would inevitably impact on the University. However, such an impact was likely to be less that the impact of HEWWRs.
• The expected increase in enrolments at the South African campus (200 over the budgeted 1000) would amount to a difference of approximately $1 million. The campus was moving towards breaking even (which would require enrolments of approximately 2,000 students).

Members commended Mr Pitt’s presentation.

25 May

10 August

5 October

9 November