Higher education and research: policy directions
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Higher education and research: policy directions Political Context Following its re-election, the Government continues essentially down the paths it laid out in the previous term. Many Ministers returned to the same portfolios including Mr Tehan for Education, Mrs Andrews for Industry Science and Technology, Mr Hunt for Health and Ms Cash for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, which includes vocational education. The main university research programs and ARC sit with Mr Tehan. Mrs Andrews retains the Government research bodies, like CSIRO, and the CRC program along with the industry role. Labor retains Tanya Plibersek as its education and skills shadow Minister, with Brendan O’Connor, MP for Gorton in Victoria, as the new shadow Minister for Employment, Industry, and Science and Chris Bowen as Shadow Minister for Health. Policy context The Government released several consultation papers late in 2018 to carry through announcements dating back to Senator Birmingham’s last package of reforms and the later decisions in December 2017 to freeze Commonwealth Grant Scheme allocations. Over 2018 it also introduced several pieces of legislation, some of which the Parliament has yet to resolve. The IRU has made submissions to the numerous policy consultations and reviews from the Coalition Government over the past year. On quality frameworks, education funding and provider categories, these include submissions to: • Australian Qualifications Framework Review • Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards • Performance-Based Funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme • National Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy • Indigenous Student Success Program Post-Implementation Review • HESA Cost Recovery and Charges Inquiry • Growing International Education in Regional Australia: IRU response • Review of the Melbourne Declaration • Tackling Contract Cheating The IRU has also made submissions to reviews into elements of research and innovation: • Review of Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) • Improving Innovation Indicators • 2018-2020 Medical Research Future Fund Priorities • 2019 HERDC Specifications - New Accounting Standards • Inquiry into Funding Australia’s Research • Implementation of the National Science and Research Priorities under the ARC's NCGP. iru.edu.au Charles Darwin University // Flinders University // Griffith University //James Cook University // La Trobe University // Murdoch University // Western Sydney University
More broadly, the IRU has advocated for demand driven funding, a tertiary education system that
focuses on people (rather than providers), and a public research system that incentivises university-
industry collaboration, translational research and regional development.
The IRU has set these out its vision in the recent publications:
• Towards a Tertiary Future discussion paper
• Impact of the Demand Driven System 2009 to 2017
• IRU 2019 pre-Budget submission.
The Government responses to the above reviews and consultations will frame the policy landscape
for higher education over the coming three years. In the short term, it is not likely that the
Government will propose major changes to the approach to higher education.
Later in this term, as the demographic and employment pressures grow it is more likely it will
consider the tertiary framework, including the place of non-university providers.
The squeeze on Commonwealth Grant Scheme funds means that support for core teaching and
research will continue to be tight. Arguments to split out a ‘research’ element will continue to
simmer. Performance funding will likely have modest redistributive impacts but the allocation of
Commonwealth supported postgraduate and sub bachelor places could be quite different.
1. International education
The Government’s early focus was to create a cross Government strategy whose purpose is to
articulate a whole of Government commitment to supporting international education.
Straddling the competing pressures to make student visas available and to discourage use of student
visas as an easy entry option for people seeking residence it introduced streamlined visa processing
in two main stages. This gives greater responsibility to education providers to vouch for the verity of
their proposed students at the risk of losing standing if more than a handful breach visa
requirements.
Estimates from the Department of Home Affairs data are that 16 percent of overseas students
transitioned to permanent residency between 2001 and 2014, confirming that the vast majority
complete degrees and leave.
The Government through Foreign Affairs created the New Colombo Plan to push up the extent of
Australian student study and work-based learning in Asia. It has largely worked in combination with
universities’ internal programs to make mobility much more common.
Recent Government initiatives
Post Study work visa
The current options for post study work visa will be extended from November 2021. International
students will be able to apply for an additional year for a post-study work visa if they complete a
higher education or postgraduate qualification in a regional area, and then live in a regional area
while holding a Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa.
2Regional Visas
From November 2019, two new regional visas will be implemented: the Skilled Work Regional
(Provisional) visa, and the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa, which will replace
the existing Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (subclass 187) visa, and the Skilled Regional
(Provisional) visa (subclass 489). The new visas will permit skilled migrants to stay and work in
regional Australia for a period of five years.
From November 2022, the Government will introduce a Permanent Residence visa for regional
Australia.
Visa application charge
The Government increased the visa application charge by 5.4 per cent from 1 July 2019. There will be
no increase to second instalment VACs. This measure is estimated to increase revenue by about $90
million a year.
Destination Australia Program replacing the endeavour leadership program
The Government has over two budgets initially cut and now ended the Endeavour programs in favour
of the new Destination Australia Program to give scholarships to both domestic and international
students to study in regional Australia.
Foreign Interference
The Government has raised its efforts to counter foreign interference in Australian operations which
includes a greater focus on ensuring that universities are not used to gather skills and knowledge
applied negatively
Public reputation of international education
The Australian political parties almost all argue strongly for the advantages of the international
student market, citing its economic value and then its potential for improving understanding of
Australia around the world. Public opinion sampling tends to produce more positive assessments,
partly induced by the direction of the questions.
At regular points there are media stories emphasing the potential negatives from international
education, with the Four Corners episode in May 2019 a lead example.
These can cover some of:
• the contribution of greater numbers of students to inner city congestion, particularly due to the
rapid expansion of some universities in the past five years
• the risks to the migrant program from students focusing at work opportunities not study
• claims of students’ limited English affecting the standard of learning for all
• displacement of Australians from study opportunities
• directing universities away from their mission for Australian students, with learning being
subsumed to business development.
The arguments put against international students partly echo arguments against the widening of
university access. Proponents want to contain universities to a golden set of very capable students
and themselves.
3The period of rapid expansion of Australian student places over the last decade partly offset these
concerns, at least in terms of balance of the student group. The return of contained funding for the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme could change that.
English language proficiency remains an important requirement:
• The public concerns have been taken up by the student groups to argue for better student
services. IRU members each have support systems for students including opportunities to
continue to improve English skills and measure improvements.
• TEQSA has restated publicly the expectations for English language and academic preparation
requirements and recommended strengthening the requirements for providers to show that
these are suitable.
Growing International Education in Regional Australia
In November 2018, the Council for International Education released a consultation paper Growing
International Education in Regional Australia. The aim was to stimulate discussion on how to
promote and develop opportunities for international students beyond Sydney, Melbourne and
Brisbane.
The IRU response supported growing international education in regional Australia to reduce the
pressure on the major cities through improving knowledge of the breadth of Australian universities
and stimulating vibrant, educated communities around all of our universities.
This should be part of a broader and coordinated investment by Government in regional cities and
institutions, including stimulating research capability and a wider geographical distribution of new
research infrastructure. The IRU opposed directing students to particular destinations, which would
only have the negative impact of deterring students from coming to Australia at all.
The Council’s advice included structural incentives (visas), funding (regional scholarships), marketing
and community incentives (infrastructure, work opportunities). The Government response largely
supported the advice, including an additional year of post-study work visa and creating the
Destination Australia scholarship program to study in regional Australia.
This was confirmed in the 2019 Budget, with funds redirected from the cancelled Endeavour
Leadership Program which previously offered two-way international mobility for short and long-term
study, research and professional development.
2. Education and funding
Performance funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme
As part of MYEFO 2017–18, the Government announced that it was capping Commonwealth Grant
Scheme (CGS) funding for bachelor level courses at 2017 levels for 2018 and 2019. In December
2018, the Government released a Discussion Paper on performance based formulae for increased
funding.
The Government proposal from 2020 is for the university funding caps to be indexed to population
growth (18 to 64‑year-old age bracket), contingent on meeting performance standards on student
experience, graduate outcomes and equity.
4It claims the increases will be tied to improvement in the quality of student outcomes, without
advancing evidence of serious weakness in them at the end of a period in which all universities have
increased student numbers significantly.
Funding for universities to educate students is based on the argument that each university should
have similar resources to educate the students it enrols. Each will then do what it can with the
revenue to meet the needs of the students. Competition among universities is about how well each
can educate, not for different resources.
On this approach performance information is a pressure applied to universities to keep them focused
at ensuring that students do achieve the best outcomes possible with the available resources.
The IRU supported this outcome (see here).
The Government’s proposal is driven by the recurring alternative argument that that there need to
be direct revenue rewards and punishments to really drive the best results. On this approach, the
performance information should drive funding which should lead to some universities being better
resourced than others.
It would mean that students will have more or less resources targeted at them now according to the
past actions of their preferred university and of past students’ choices about their future actions and
assessment of their teaching. The IRU opposed this outcome.
The expert panel report is due soon. The panel is chaired by Professor Paul Wellings (VC,
Wollongong) and includes four other Vice Chancellors (including Sandra Harding, JCU). The Minister
is likely to essentially take up the report, perhaps with one further tight set of discussions to finalise
approach where some options are included. At this point, since the intent is to implement, timeliness
and certainty become important which the Department of Education recognises.
Reallocation of Commonwealth Supported Places for Enabling, Sub-Bachelor and
Postgraduate courses
In November 2018, the Government released a Consultation Paper that sets out options for
allocating enabling, sub-bachelor and postgraduate courses to come into effect from 2020.
In the lead up the Department of Education and Training has enforced correct use of current
allocations. The logic is to ensure all spending is contained and savings flow from the reduction in
postgraduate allocations.
• Where postgraduate places are for defined courses/disciplines/campuses they must be so used.
• Switching designated places between postgraduate and sub-bachelor is not permitted.
Discussion with the Department puts emphasis on connecting places to future employment need.
The Department also argues that a constant proportion of places should be reallocated each year to
allow regular adjustments.
The IRU submission (see here) emphasised:
1. Allocation of places should be dynamic to ensure alignment with the program objectives.
2. Universities should be the prime determinant of which courses funded places are used for,
consistent with Government target outcomes.
3. The criteria proposed for determining allocations are mostly suitable.
5The Government is yet to set out its planned approach. Amendments to prevent linked
undergraduate-postgraduate combined programs being funded as non-designated have not been
tabled or passed. Most IRU members have courses at risk. Discussions with the Department indicate
in future any postgraduate element has to come from the postgraduate designated places, with
allowance to let any currently enrolled students complete the dual program.
Universities may face a late announcement or little change for 2020, with clarity about changes from
2021. Underutilisation of allocations (more common in the postgraduate set than the sub bachelor)
continues to be a focus. If universities are not using an allocation, for whatever reason, they can
expect these to be at risk.
Costing of teaching
The Government has instituted annual reporting of the use of revenue to support education (the
2018 and 2019 submissions) which will extend to include use to support research from the 2020
submission.
The returns build off the 2016 Deloittes report Senator Birmingham used to argue that with revenue
growing faster than expenditure on teaching that universities do not spend enough on teaching, that
they in various ways misdirect revenue to support other activities notably research. Once research is
part of the data set the Government may well condemn universities for being inefficient for research.
The analysis presumes that the Commonwealth Grant Scheme is solely for education.
To assist the positive use of the data, all seven IRU members have brought together their data sets,
improving the returns the universities give to Government and improving internal understanding of
cost drivers.
Tackling contract cheating
In April 2019 the Government released a Draft Bill to prohibit academic cheating services for public
comment which would make it an offence to offer or advertise a cheating service, with criminal and
civil penalties. The draft bill amends the TEQSA Act, using TEQSA as the regulator responsible for
administering the law.
The IRU response was supportive, but raised concerns that cheating and cheating service provider
are too broadly defined. Cheating includes “providing any part of a piece of work or assignment”. A
cheating service provider can be “any person” who provides or advertises these services, irrespective
of if it is intentional or for any gain for the person providing the service. This breadth creates
uncertainty over what will be practically enforceable by TEQSA, whether universities become
obligated to report all cases to TEQSA and when to involve TEQSA in investigations.
If strictly enforced by TEQSA, it may create considerable uncertainty amongst students and create
fear that all forms of peer support (including student-to-student, or support from family and friends)
should be avoided to avoid incriminating themselves or their support group.
The IRU proposed:
1. Restricting the scope of the legislation to commercial contract cheating services; or
2. Retain current list of cheating activities, but better define “part of a piece of work or
assignment”.
6Indigenous Student Success Program Post-Implementation Review
The Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP) assists the enrolment, progression and award
completions of Indigenous Australians through scholarships, tutorial assistance, mentoring, safe
cultural spaces and other personal support services. In July 2018, the Government released a
Discussion Paper to ensure the program was operating effectively and as intended.
The IRU response supported the aim of the revamped ISSP to give universities greater flexibility to
use the funds allocated, but noted that the freeze on Commonwealth Grant Scheme and an annual
increases of indigenous students in recent years, means fewer funds are available per student.
Therefore, the IRU recommended:
• ISSP funding increase in line with numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students so
that the average funds available maintains value.
Review of the Melbourne Declaration
The Melbourne Declaration of educational goals for young Australians is the third statement from
the Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers to guide schools’ policy over the following decade.
The development of the fourth statement considered whether the schools statement should be
broadened to include education following school, and learning outcomes required for tertiary study.
The IRU submission proposed:
1. The revised national schools statement should remain schools focused.
2. The Commonwealth and State and Territory Ministers should consider the value from a distinct
whole of education framework statement
3. The revised national schools statement should require school systems to be explicit about the
learning outcomes and capabilities of students at the end of schooling to provide a stronger basis
for the transition to subsequent tertiary study and training.
The refreshed Declaration will be considered by the Education Council in late 2019.
Productivity Commission Report on the Demand Driven University System
In June 2019 the Productivity Commission released The Demand Driven University System: A mixed
report card. The study investigated whether the ‘additional students’ who enrolled in university
under the demand driven system benefited (academically and financially), and the extent that the
demand driven system improved equity outcomes. The data was exclusively about students who
were less than 23 – that is those enrolling in the years immediately after school.
Overall, demand driven funding was seen to improve equity of access, but less so for regional
students, and with risks of non-completion for those entering university less prepared. Employment
outcomes were mostly positive. The main policy implications focused on:
• Improving preparation via the school system
• Improving regional student access
• Incentivising universities to provide more academic support to students at risk.
The IRU commented on the report’s limitations of not assessing growing participation in older age
cohorts in for indigenous and regional Australians.
7Despite the “mixed” report, the outcomes gave recognition that mass/universal higher education
access requires a well-functioning school and vocational education system. The focus on regional
students and incentives for student retention align with the Coalition’s broader higher education
policy agenda.
3. Quality frameworks, provider categories and freedom of speech
The Government has in train reviews of the Australian Qualifications Framework, chaired by
Professor Peter Noonan, and the Higher Education Provider Category Standards that guide the
registration of providers, by Professor Peter Coaldrake. The Government continues to maintain
pressure on better information sources for prospective students to use in selecting courses.
Australian Qualifications Framework
The contextual research for the review showed that the Australian model is more rigid, distinguishing
each qualification with detailed descriptors, whereas may international comparators focus at
supporting acquisition of more complex levels of education over time.
The AQF review Discussion Paper:
1. proposed to incorporate a wider set of educational delivery into the AQF, with a focus on various
forms of shorter courses and partial delivery of existing qualifications
2. worried about how well the description of qualifications addresses expectations for workplaces
skills it calls ‘enterprise and social skills’
3. essentially accepted the current levels and taxonomy, proposing some minor clarifications and
simplification of presentation
4. Proposed to create an hours-based credit point system
5. Largely confirmed the current approach to include the senior secondary certificates
6. Proposed to remove some supporting policies from the AQF that are now part of the quality
regulators’ role.
The IRU response outlined that an effective AQF for the future should provide a coherent context for
the breadth of tertiary education and training – whereby the relationship of all activity to other
education options is clear – and only then should worry at the correct application of its formal
statements.
This should:
• Let the educators develop where education needs to go
• Include all activity, only excluding where the education outcome is clearly not good, as opposed
to not previously done.
The legal relationship of the AQF, the HE and VET standards and the powers of TEQSA and ASQA
need to be aligned to achieve this outcome.
The Review is not due to report until September 2019. Initial indications are that the review will
propose a reduced number of qualification levels aligned to a more complex mix of descriptive
factors.
The AQF involves the States and both sectors so the report will be start of long process. The 2011
AQF changes took through to 2015 to be in place.
8Higher Education Provider Category Standards
This Discussion Paper considered how Australia defines its ‘higher education providers’ and
‘universities’ and whether the Standards can be optimised to meet student, industry, regulator and
government needs. The review will provide recommendations in the second half of 2019 as to:
1. The most appropriate categorisation system for Australian higher education delivery
2. Criteria settings within each of the recommended provider categories
The IRU’s Towards a Tertiary Future discussion paper argues that there is no need to change the
essential Australian meaning of university to cover institutions that provide higher level education
and research, which is far from unusual in a world context. A university exercises a full sweep of
potential powers and it has significant research. It does not require a set of other categories to allow
it to continue, although there may be reason for categories otherwise.
The legal protection in place is sensible, with TEQSA capable of advising on any proposals for
additional universities and indeed whether all providers with the title remain competent to hold it.
That does not mean there cannot be an alternative – if there is demand for it. Other higher education
providers do not need to hide under a familiar term, they need to establish their own offering.
These points were articulated in the IRU’s response to this review, arguing that prescriptive
categories may not be needed:
1. The title of “university” should remain targeted at providers that have significant education and
research outcomes. The current criteria are suitable for this.
2. The nature and intent of all Higher Education Providers should be better known through effective
descriptions of the scope of each provider on the National Register.
3. The contribution of non-university providers to the future tertiary system should be one
consideration in explicating a tertiary system for Australia in the 2020s and beyond.
There are two issues which this review will contribute to. One is the use of the ‘university’ title. We
anticipate that containment of the title to institutions like universities now is likely.
The second issue is which institutions in the longer term should be funded through the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme.
French report and code
Universities are caught up in a political debate concerning whether some positions are being
prevented from being articulated, with claims and counter claims as incidents arise.
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is one group pushing the issue, with an annual report on
universities’ alleged restrictions on free speech. Many of these centre on whether codes and rules
requiring civil discourse and consideration of those listening constrain advancement of a position.
The issue has some traction with members of the Government. In response Mr Tehan commissioned
Robert French to report on Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers.
The French report concludes that there is no ‘systemic pattern of action by higher education
providers or student representative bodies, adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in
the higher education sector’ but argues that there are sufficient incidents that ‘may have an adverse
impact on public perception of the higher education sector which can feed into the political sphere’.
9It sets out a challenge for universities to articulate better their approach to balancing the various
expectations and pressures from:
• presentations on campus from speakers who have views opposed by others, which one or both
parties wish to turn into a crisis
• concerns at the margin for academic staff speaking freely on their areas of expertise
• heightened expectations for civility and non-aggression in exchanges among staff and students,
which create potential for problems where advocacy of a view or against it merge into negative
rhetoric and comments.
Mr French represents his suggested Code as a resource for universities to use. Mr Tehan has urged
each university council to consider adopting the Code into its formal operational documents.
4. Regional higher education
Regional, Rural and Remote Education Strategy
In December 2018, the Government released its National Regional, Rural and Remote Education
Strategy Framing Paper, developed by its Advisory Group chaired by the Hon Dr Denis Napthine.
The strategy targets the need for Australians outside major population centres to gain tertiary
education and training, whether vocational or higher education, to be confident of a successful
working and personal life.
Take up and completion is lower, especially for higher education qualifications, than in the major
cities. Regional rural and remote (RRR) students face particular challenges due to the fewer study
and training options available locally.
The IRU’s response contained the following proposals:
1. increase the university funding cap for all additional enrolments at RRR campuses
2. target funding allocated for regional hubs to ensuring existing campuses function to their best, as
well as to hubs
3. create an RRR program to encourage and reward the enrolment and progress of students from
RRR areas. The program would parallel the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships
Program (HEPPP) and Indigenous Support Program (ISP)
4. increase the minimum level of financial student support for those needing to live away from
home
5. use the next wave of research infrastructure investment to stimulate the whole Australian
research system, intentionally hosting new infrastructure across many centres, distributing the
positive spill-over effects of infrastructure
6. improve knowledge of education opportunities in RRR areas among potential international
students.
The Advisory Group subsequently released six Issues Papers, which partly reflected the IRU position
for strengthening research capacity in regional areas, the need for uncapped places and dedicated
support for higher education participation in regional Australia (see IRU response here).
10The Advisory Group were expected to deliver their recommendations and strategy to the Minister in
June 2019. The impact of higher education on the residents of Australia’s regions is one of the
priority policy areas for Mr Tehan.
Growing International Education in Regional Australia
See Section One above.
5. Research
The Government spends roughly $3.6 billion on R&D in the higher education sector. This comprises:
• Research Block Grants ($1.9 billion), split $1 billion for the Research Training Program (RTP) and
$0.9 for the Research Support Program (RSP)
• ARC ($766 million)
• NHMRC ($629 million)
• Other R&D schemes ($238 million, mostly for the Institute of Advanced Studies at ANU).
The MYEFO in December 2018 froze RBG indexation and adjusted growth for RSP, reducing research
block grant allocations by about $130 million or 6% from 2019. This reduction notionally pays for the
Minister’s rural education aspirations.
The budget forward estimates for RBG, ARC and NHMRC funding indicate modest growth. Combined
with the funding freeze on the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, the support for teaching and
research academics will be become tighter.
The prospects for medical research are stronger. The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) will
come into full allocation over the coming three years, with funding set to triple from $222 million in
2018-19 to $650 million in 2020-21, approaching levels comparable to the ARC and NHMRC, though
perhaps only half of this MRFF funding will go directly to universities.
The broader prospects for research funding from Government are stronger around industry and
innovation.
Through its previous terms the Government:
• created NISA to strengthen innovation system and take up of research outputs
• steadily allowed ARC funds to decline, as small programs ended, and tested public response to it
targeting funds more directly at priorities and not funding projects deemed off kilter to
Government interest
• funded research infrastructure for the coming decade, at roughly half the proposed investment
• reshaped the research block grants into two, but then cut funding from research support
• altered the R&D tax incentive, with results that are not yet clear, but which do not provide direct
incentives to partner with universities.
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Karen Andrews, has emphasised linking research and
business, particularly SMEs, which she sees as Government challenge to stimulate. This may mean
further effort to build off the NISA objectives and its programs of support.
11The Government is also concerned to improve how our major cities work – an opportunity for the
university city developments most IRU members have under way.
Medical Research Future Fund
The 2019 Budget set out the next allocations for the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), as part of
a $5 billion 10 year investment plan for medical research. Funds are disbursed in line with the (five
year) Innovation Strategy 2016-2021 and two-year Innovation Priorities 2018-2020.
The Priorities are developed by the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board. The $392 million
allocation for 2019-20 is split between projects for Patients ($124m), Researchers ($50m), Missions
($141m) and Translation ($78m).
In April 2019, the MRFF released an announcement for MRFF grant recipients (announced and under
contract). The document is the first time the Department has specified what funding has actually
been committed (i.e. contracted), as opposed to announced.
It remains unclear what quantum of MRFF funding each university will receive, but of the $471
million that been contracted, around $20 million has been awarded to the IRU (4%), $168 million to
Go8 (36%), $8 million to unaffiliated universities (2%), $1 million to ATN (0%) and $275 million to
other institutions (58%). To put this into perceptive, IRU generally receives around 8% of ARC and
NHMRC funding.
Part of the MRFF funding will be considered Category 1 funding and, with the quantum of total MRFF
funding set to triple over the coming three years, it will start to have a major impact on RBG
allocations.
The IRU’s position is that the MRFF needs to maintain its focus on translating research to change
health practices and services. Priorities should support programs that intentionally benefit all parts of
Australia. Changes in regional and Indigenous health need priority attention. This includes
strengthening the health systems of regions through greater engagement with locally-based
community organisations who directly interact with patients.
The disbursement of MRFF funds in the priority areas should also be based on the principles of open
and transparent competition, with only a small fraction disbursed via the mostly metropolitan based
Advanced Health Research and Translation Centres (AHTRCs). The IRU advocated for this in its
September 2018 submission to the 2018-2020 MRFF Priorities.
National Science and Research Priorities
In March 2019 the Government released its Discussion Paper on the Implementation of the National
Science and Research Priorities under the ARC's NCGP. It was partly in response to October 2018
Report from the House of Representatives Inquiry into Funding Australia's Research which
recommended “the Australian Government provide greater oversight and coordination of Australia’s
research investment.” It could also be understood within the context of Minister Birmingham’s
vetoing of 2018 ARC projects lacking identifiable benefits to Australia.
The task of the inquiry was to consider the appropriate relationship between the excellence-based
National Competitive Grants Scheme (NCGS) and the strategically-oriented National Science and
Research Priorities. The IRU’s position, as articulated in our response, is that the NCGS should remain
excellence-based and fund the highest quality projects across a breadth of fields. With 70% of total
12funding under the NCGP aligned with the Priorities, including 94% of ARC Linkage funding, funding is
already strategically oriented. Tighter alignment between Priorities and NCGS would risk the quality
of funded projects, disadvantage HASS and other enabling scientific disciplines, and undermine
efficiency and transparency of the NCGS.
ERA and Engagement and Impact 2018
The release of the Excellence in Research for Australia and the Engagement and Impact assessments
confirmed the strength of IRU research and of that across universities generally. A dashboard
showing the relationship between ERA 2018 and EI 2018 results by field and university is available
here.
ERA shows that the gap between universities in quality has narrowed with very few areas of research
receiving less than an at world class or better rating. While the amount of research in some
institutions is much more extensive than in others the quality of it is clear.
The Engagement and Impact assessments allow us to look at who are the research end users from
industry and Government. The EI 2018 results generally supported the value from university
research. It is no surprise that research from a particular field is used across many areas, and
conversely that industries drawing on research from many fields. In particular, the data shows the
value of research in humanities and social sciences across the breadth of socio-economic activity.
The frequency and timing of the ERA and EI exercises continue to be a concern, primarily due to the
administration costs involved, but these are likely to continue to operate on a three-year cycle. It is
unclear how the Government intends to use the results of either exercise for policy development.
Only the high impact EI case studies were published, but the IRU members are planning to share all
cases studies identified and submitted to EI as being good examples of research impact. This full suite
of case studies will provide us with a better picture of the impact and approaches to impact across
the IRU. Members are also sharing their ERA explanatory statements.
8 July 2019
13You can also read
