The Chancellor gave a brief overview of the Senate retreat held on 12-13 March, noting in particular that:

• feedback was very positive
• one of the key messages for members of Senate is that they should make greater use their networks both within and outside of the University
• the general feeling is that the University is operating on a solid foundation, with good lines of communication established

Senate noted that it had yet to resolve its priorities for 2005. In view of the number of apologies for this meeting, it was resolved to defer this item until the next meeting of Senate.

Senate noted a detailed analysis of the Universities Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 prepared by the General Counsel & University Secretary. There was a general discussion in relation to a number of issues, including:

• It was not possible to include a transitional provision for the Guild President because the Protocols mandated that this position cease to be an ex officio member of Senate and this had to be in effect as at 31 August.
• The provision dealing with elected Convocation members should not exclude honorary or adjunct academic staff. In general, the exclusion from eligibility for election should apply only to staff employed on a fulltime or more than 50% part-time contract.
• The existing quorum for Senate (i.e. 8) does not need to be adjusted.
• The Parliamentary Counsel’s Office had shown a strong preference to draft the duties by reference to the WA Statutory Corporations (Liability of Directors) Act, rather than by reference to the Commonwealth Corporations Act, notwithstanding the request of the 4 universities.
• The proposed duty in clause 1(1)(c) of the Bill’s Schedule, i.e. always acting in the best interests of the University will involve an objective assessment of the circumstances, i.e. what would a reasonable person in the same situation regard as in the best interests of the University.
• Where a member of Senate breaches one of the new duties, the University should have the ability to pursue civil action to recover any detriment caused by that member’s conduct. This presents little difference from the current situation whereby the Minister or Attorney General could take action for breach of the general fiduciary duty that applies by virtue of the Statutory Corporations (Liability of Directors) Act.

The Vice Chancellor spoke to his March report to Senate.

Prof Jan Thomas, the PVC (Academic) provided an update on Murdoch’s preparations for the upcoming AUQA audit, including the following:

• She expects to receive advice as to when the AQUA audit will take place any day
• The University’s preparations are on track and there has been a very positive response to information sessions provided across the University
• Templates have been set up for the purpose of data gathering, which will take place over the next 3 months
• The 4 PVCs are chairing working parties responsible for content of the University’s portfolio which correspond with the 4 areas in the strategic plan
• Ideally, an external member of Senate should be a member of each of the working parties (the Chancellor encouraged external members of Senate to volunteer in this regard)
• In the immediate future the University’s Quality website will be updated to become a resource for further information.

Senate noted a briefing paper prepared by the Director of Development (supported by the Acting Vice Chancellor).

Subject to correction of a typographical error and including within the minutes the actual terms of the vote of thanks to the former University Secretary, Senate confirmed the minutes of the meeting held on 22/02/2005. It also noted a report of action taken to implement previous resolveds of Senate.

There was a general discussion regarding the content of the Senate’s minutes. Key points raised included:

• Should the minutes include a more detailed account of matters discussed?
• The critical issue is that minutes accurately record the decisions of Senate
• Whilst minutes of Senate may not need to include a detailed account of deliberations, it was important that minutes of committee deliberations be sufficiently detailed to enable Senate to properly understand the reasoning that underpins decisions and recommendations.
• The minutes should not be a detailed or semi-Hansard record of Senate’s deliberations.

The Chancellor invited any members of Senate who have continuing concerns in relation to the minutes to prepare a paper detailing their concerns and forward it to him for further consideration. As necessary, the Chancellor will raise the matter at the next meeting of Senate.

Senate noted the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 16/03/2007, including the fact that they contain a number of recommendations to Senate, details of which are yet to be reviewed by the Legislation Committee. The recommendations will be referred to Senate after this has occurred.

Senate noted the minutes of the meeting of the Chancellor’s Committee held on 12/03/2007.There was a discussion regarding proposed standing order 4.7A, including the following:

• Notwithstanding the proposed discretion in the Chair to permit questions without notice, the proposed standing order might be seen as an impediment to discussion
• Senate need to focus on informed debate, not just debate, and this meant giving timely notice of matters that members of Senate wanted to discuss

The Chancellor withdrew the recommendation, indicating that he will leave matters on a voluntary basis and review the position should a voluntary approach not be consistent with the efficient and effective disposal of Senate business

Senate resolved as follows with regard to the balance of the recommendations contained in the minutes.

Senate noted the minutes of the meeting of the Environmental Committee held on 09/03/2007 and resolved as follows in accordance with the recommendations contained in the minutes.
The Vice Chancellor provided a verbal update on negotiations in relation to the ‘Ag. Centre’ and its implications for the University. Comments during the course of discussions included:

• This is one of the most exciting initiatives that the University has undertaken. However, if successful, the University must not be complacent and needs to look for the next significant achievement
• The Vice Chancellor has established a working party involving key stakeholders to ensure a complete and successful integration with the University campus
• All proposals for integration are consistent with existing facilities and the campus master plan that Senate has endorsed and the City of Melville is happy with
• The Government has not made any final decisions as yet and therefore it is premature to assume what specific aspects will be coming to the campus.

Senate noted the minutes of the Resources Committee (by way of circular resolved) made on 18/03/2007, together with a supplementary briefing paper in relation to the Paragen transaction (RC/06/2005).

It was confirmed that there was no meeting of the Resources Committee and that these matters were by way of circulation and, therefore, there was no discussion involved. The resolveds were passed by majority of the committee.

Senate resolved in accordance with the recommendations of the Resources Committee (as amended) as follows: