The proposed?Australian Tertiary Education Commission?(Atec) risks becoming a too-hard basket where promising ideas are sent to die, an expert group has warned.

Atec is ¡°the gilt statue on the mantlepiece of the Universities Accord¡±, according to newly launched discussion forum??(THG). But ¡°it¡¯s become an easy dumping ground¡± for policies ¡°flung, not-inadvertently, beyond the next vote¡±.

The commission must not be consigned to ¡°the long grass of policy ¨C a cheap place for policymakers to say, ¡®a future body will deal with this complicated issue¡¯,¡± THG¡¯s founding members warn in their?. Atec must also avoid the trap of trying to please everyone, in a sector that ¡°has failed to agree on many basic issues¡±.

¡°Attempting to make a body which meets everyone¡¯s satisfaction might result in no-one¡¯s needs being met,¡± the article warns. ¡°It is not a matter of building consensus among stakeholders¡¯ present interests, but alignment with broader principles and strategies.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Above all, the commission should not overlook the lashings of expertise within the sector. It should be driven not necessarily by ¡°senior people in grey suits¡± but by operatives ¨C those who have done the ¡°mundane¡± work of translating policy objectives and political realities into institutional level practice.

If the commission lacks this sort of expertise, the implications could be ¡°dire¡±. Policy history is littered with statutory agencies that ¡°operate in silos and fail in their endeavours¡± because they do not grasp what they are ¡°supposed to do¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The commission is the topic of the moment, the new group says. ¡°Now is the window¡­to think critically about the Atec. We shouldn¡¯t miss the opportunity to shape the body into the organisation which will deliver the most benefit.¡±

THG sees its role as occupying the middle ground between the daily news cycle and the peer-reviewed research article. It offers ¡°critical commentary with purpose¡±, dealing with issues that ¡°can¡¯t be argued away in a day. Few real-world questions have just one or two answers,¡± it notes.

Founding member Angel Calderon said the group wanted to remedy ¡°the lack of policy debate¡± in Australian higher education.

¡°We don¡¯t have many forums now,¡± said Mr Calderon, an RMIT University strategist who said he was speaking in a private capacity. ¡°We don¡¯t get together. We don¡¯t discuss things.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

He said there were still opportunities for robust policy debate through state-based networks and the University of Melbourne¡¯s LH Martin Institute, but that was about it. The situation overseas was much the same, as forums for discussion ¨C through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, for example ¨C dried up.

Mr Calderon said the government¡¯s proposal to?cap international enrolments?exemplified the need for hands-on expertise in Atec. The change could cost the sector A$1.5 billion (?787 million) in the first year, rising to A$4 billion by year three, he warned.

¡°If it is implemented it will have serious consequences, and I don¡¯t think people realise that. If we want a commission that is effective¡­it needs expertise on the things that are really happening in institutions, the sum of the parts.

¡°We could end up creating a monster that¡­at the end will deliver nothing.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com