Australian Universities Accord should be split into mini-accords to reflect institutions’ strengths, review submissions say
Australia’s university sector has called for the proposed Australian Universities Accord to be divided into a series of mini-accords, in which each university’s agreement with the government would reflect its needs and strengths.
In responses this month to a discussion paper in Mary O’Kane’s review of the Australian Universities Accord, a proposed agreement between higher education and the government, universities called for individual accords and warned of fragmented research priorities and the need to fully fund all university research.
In its submission, the vice-chancellors’ group Universities Australia (UA) proposed “partnership agreements” to quantify what different universities should be doing, with minimum grants baked into the deals. The Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) said that “a single accord with each university would be the mechanism for providing secure funding to support the mission of a university and, over time, to enable greater differentiation in the missions of universities”.
“Block funding provided as part of accords would seek to provide a stable level of baseline funding. This would enable universities to make investment decisions concerning their contribution to national goals and their particular missions.”
The Innovative Research Universities group proposed a system that “fosters innovation and diversity, with each university focusing on its distinct mission and community”.
More diversity between universities was also suggested by the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, which called for “an equitable, sustainable and simplified funding model that allows universities to pursue research that is fit for their communities and specialisations”.
Full funding
UA was one of several bodies calling for the Job-Ready Graduates package, which promotes areas of national priority and differential tuition fees, to be scrapped. Other, longer-term proposals in its submission include a new dedicated research and teaching infrastructure system and an investigation into “red tape” and overlap.
It called for a rethink of how higher education is planned in Australia, asking for a mechanism “underpinned by research and analysis of trends and developments in post-secondary education”, and it said the accord would need to be bipartisan and shared across government agencies such as Jobs and Skills Australia to be effective.
The vice-chancellors said that any accord needed to include looking at “whether the right measures are in place to encourage businesses to invest in research and development”. By 2030, Australia’s level of R&D spending should be raised to the OECD average and all university research should be fully funded, they said.
The Group of Eight research-intensive universities’ submission called for a “national research strategy” and an “overarching government body for research and innovation”. The Go8 also wants research to be fully funded and a new future fund, similar to the Medical Research Future Fund, to be launched for basic non-medical research.
The ATN said institutions needed full funding for “critical” research. Australia should carry out “a review of the national research and innovation ecosystem, covering all directly funded Commonwealth research and agencies including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and others, to drive balanced growth of medical translation and non-medical research”.
The group said the current multiple funding streams had let research infrastructure fall behind, although “a number of specific projects have been funded, with approvals based largely on ministerial discretion”.
Indigenous issues
Universities also highlighted Indigenous issues, with the UA submission saying the group was “disappointed” that student equity was “the only context in which the terms of reference consider Indigenous students and staff”. These students and staff have “unique knowledges and knowledge systems” to offer.
The ATN’s submission said that “First Nations knowledge, skills and connections should be embedded in all facets of our work across teaching, research and engagement”.
The deans of arts, social sciences and humanities proposed a national Indigenous Learning and Teaching Centre “to coordinate and advance the impact of Indigenous knowledges in all aspects of Australian higher education learning and research”.