The Expert Council on University Governance was established by Australia’s Education Ministers. Hence one could be forgiven for thinking that university governance may see through, at best, a public sector, or at worst, a political perspective.

Its final report presents new governance principles and recommendations to “strengthen” the governance of Australia’s public universities.

The appropriate level of remuneration for Vice Chancellors (VCs) and executives was identified as a point of focus and contention.

The reports’ Principles for remuneration appear to be fine. They include:

• Developing a framework that reflects ethical considerations, university size and funding model, benchmarking against public sector for-purpose and other private entities, structured job evaluation methodologies, and alignment with performance.
• Ensure any variable remuneration or incentive payments are linked to clear performance metrics.
• Annually disclose the remuneration of the VC and senior managers, including a breakdown of their fixed remuneration, any variable remuneration and incentive payments, and other benefits.
• Annually disclose whether the VC or senior managers received material remuneration from a party other than the university.

While it was emphasised that the Chancellor and governing body need to remain accountable for the structures and remuneration outcomes set for the Vice-Chancellor and senior management, the report appeared to hedge. That is, the report accepts there may be benefit of the University Chancellors Council suggestion for the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal to give advice on VC salaries, and recommends the Education Department work with the UCC to agree a preferred approach. This is a recommendation from individuals occupying poorly remunerated ‘honorary’ positions who, with other poorly remunerated ‘volunteers’, in a governing body oversee billion dollar non-profit corporations in a globally competitive industry to advance research and development, and educate to advance the well-being of individuals and their society.

Hence some suggest that, of course, they would rather be rid of the responsibility. It requires time, effort and expertise for which they are not themselves adequately remunerated. Universities get what they pay for. No doubt many on university councils have appropriate expertise. But how many expect them to put in the hours of an ASX 100 board director given the disparity in fees and, in many respects, more complex business and governance dynamics?

Some would say that the report does not adequately consider the role of the university board, and how it carries out its oversight function on pay. There is too little on the skills and experience required of a university governing body, nor discussion on member remuneration to adequately exercise a governance function. This would respond to those who consider university higher education is probably too precious to become governed in part by a public service remuneration agency.

For the full report see HERE.

© Guerdon Associates 2025 Back to all articles