̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Imagine a higher education sector united by a common purpose ¨C one that drives societal advancement, strengthens democratic values and supports economic, social and environmental progress.

This is the vision of the newly formed interim Australian Tertiary Education Commission (Atec), a body that seeks to bring universities together around shared national outcomes. It¡¯s a bold ambition, and rightly so.

One of Atec¡¯s first undertakings was to commence the process of negotiating mission-based compacts with universities, aligning funding and performance goals with each institution¡¯s unique role, priorities and community focus.

As the name suggests, a mission-based compact must have mission at its core. But this is not just a rhetorical flourish. There is a genuine risk that, otherwise, these compacts could become mere bureaucratic formalities, serving compliance (and duplicating a function already fulfilled by the sector¡¯s regulator, Teqsa) rather than reaffirming and strengthening institutions¡¯ social licence and driving meaningful change.

Yet here we should pause to acknowledge what some observers might argue: that university missions are?mostly?indistinguishable from one another, dressed in different language but ultimately expressing generic aspirations. After all, what university would not support the worthy goals of advancing prosperity, promoting good citizenship and preparing students for future careers?

This critique deserves serious consideration. While it¡¯s true that universities share fundamental commitments to teaching, research and engagement, their missions diverge in application. Consider, for example, the material difference between a regional university with deep roots in its community and a research-intensive institution with global ambitions. Or between a faith-based university grounded in particular traditions and values and a secular institution with an entirely different philosophical foundation.

These distinctions are not merely semantic. They translate into concrete strategic choices, such as which research areas are emphasised, how student support is structured, what partnerships are prioritised and how success is measured.

When authentically embraced, missions serve as both compass and constraint. They guide institutions towards their distinctive contributions while acknowledging what they cannot and should not attempt to be. A university committed to serving Indigenous communities, for instance, will make different choices to one that is focused on international mobility. An institution that emphasises social justice will allocate resources differently to one focused on commercial innovation.

Australian universities have now received the new compact template for 2026, with Atec foreshadowing that a different approach to mission-based compacts will follow from 2027. The current document rightly explores the areas of equality of opportunity, teaching and learning performance, research activities and industry engagement ¨C priorities that reflect the evolving needs of an inclusive, innovative and globally connected higher education landscape.

But let¡¯s focus on the first domain of the mission-based compact as it now stands, ¡°mission and strategic planning¡±. Institutions are asked to ¡°specify details of overall mission¡± but this is subsumed within a scant 500-word section that also requires statements about the university¡¯s approach to safety, foreign interference, freedom of speech, workforce and skill needs and other ¡°strategic¡± priorities. Each of these is undeniably important, yet initiatives to address them ought to be assumed as foundational, and so already governed by Teqsa¡¯s regulatory framework.

In other words, rather than beginning with mission and building outward, the compact template¡¯s structure simply treats mission as just another compliance requirement. The likely result will be an exercise that produces formulaic agreements bearing little resemblance to the transformative compacts that Atec envisions. And the risk is that universities¡¯ distinct missions, reflecting their different histories, communities and aspirations, become flattened into inflexible uniformity ¨C and institutions thereby lose their agility and capacity to address the nation-building challenges of the future in a rapidly evolving environment.

The alternative is straightforward. Compacts should translate broad sector goals into bespoke commitments. By putting the unique mission of each university at the centre, they would ensure that diverse aims are recognised and reflect on where the university in question could go given its distinctive capabilities.

What would this look like in practice? Let¡¯s take the institution I lead, the Australian Catholic University (ACU), as an example. ACU is dedicated to the dignity and flourishing of every person, a mission woven throughout our teaching, research and engagement. With a footprint across the east coast, we are the largest provider of teachers and health professionals in the country, for instance. A genuine mission-based compact would begin with this distinctive contribution and explore how its impact could be deepened and expanded in line with national priorities.

When grounded in institutional purpose, mission-based compacts offer a unique opportunity to realise Atec¡¯s bold ambition: to foster progress, underpin a strong and equitable democracy, and advance economic and social prosperity for the nation.

But this opportunity will only be realised if the process begins with mission in a meaningful way. Not with metrics, but with purpose.

is vice-chancellor and president of the Australian Catholic University.