by MERLIN CROSSLEY

Even before the submissions to the O’Kane Review – on the Australian Universities Accord – were due, I saw many drafts from individuals, groups, single universities, groups of universities, vice-chancellors, chancellors, and industry stakeholders.

The first lesson was that everyone was keen to share. That’s wonderful.

The second lesson involves how good the drafts were and how consistent.

Part of this reflects how the review was set up. First there was consultation on the terms of reference. Then an initial discussion paper, including 49 questions, was released. People were invited to reflect on these and respond to as many as they wished. Few, if any, of the drafts answered the questions formally, but I think the process helped shape the responses. It’s working well.

Two messages stood out to me: one related to educational access, the other to sovereign research capability.

There are real opportunities to make Australia an even better place.

Let’s consider ‘access’. We don’t want a country where only elites have access to the full range of educational opportunities, or just city folk, or just those who are not juggling caring responsibilities or work. We’ll have a better society if everyone has access to as much education and the type they aspire to, be it university, vocational training, a juris doctor, an MBA, or a doctorate.

In Australia the data tell us that regional students, lower socio-economic status students, Indigenous students, and various other groups are under-represented. Sometimes the barriers are financial. Income contingent loans were an inspired Australian solution to supporting tuition fees, but what about living costs and foregone wages? And can we remove the barriers that deter continuation to the most prestigious graduate degrees? We don’t want a world where only the richest people get the credentials required for top jobs. I saw ideas about funding, but also about better organising and formalising part-time lifelong learning, so that people can adapt their studying to fit their different life paths.

Why do we care about access? Because we want a cohesive society where no one is, and where no one feels, excluded. And, we don’t know where the next Einstein will come from, but we don’t want to miss her. Equity is about excellence, and it’s about human capital. Cultural and economic benefits accrue to inclusive and just societies.

We also want a society that explores, innovates, and solves problems. COVID and AUKUS remind us that sovereign capability is important.

Submissions pointed out how fragile our research system is. The true costs of research are not funded by grants in Australia. Instead, research is subsidised from international student fees. The government formally recognized this during COVID and contributed $1bn to support research until international student fee revenue recovered.

The $1bn funding has been exhausted now, but we don’t want to go back to over-reliance on international student fees.

It makes us vulnerable to changes in global affairs. It is a temporary solution that will gradually fade as countries become self-sufficient in education. It affects what courses universities offer, and if student numbers increase so much that the quality of education suffers, then the strategy will be self-defeating.

The lazily optimistic “more, more, more” philosophy of international student revenues is not the answer to increasing research costs. Indirect costs increase as handheld telescopes are superseded by huge space telescopes (sophistication costs), and oddly direct costs go up too as Australian funders increasingly choose not to fully fund grants, but to spread their money further by part-funding grants and leaving institutions to fill the gap.

Deans joke that “the only thing worse than getting no grants this year, is getting them all.” Because if any university did secure all the grants it applied for, it would go broke in trying to support the direct and indirect research costs. The part-funding of research punishes excellence.

This situation has been allowed to continue because the universities that are successful in research have often managed to recruit ‘more, more, more’ international students to cover the gaps.

But review submissions warn of the dangers. We should keep celebrating having some, indeed, even very many international students, but over-reliance is foolish. It’s time to take sovereign responsibility for our sovereign capabilities.

It is possible to fund the full costs of research and many countries do it. You simply start factoring in the indirect and direct costs into every grant provided by major research agencies, and others will follow suit. This targets support to wherever excellent research is occurring. Given the returns on research investment (perhaps $5 for each $1 invested), ultimately research pays for itself. One just has to phase in full funding gradually at an agreed rate.

There were other ideas too. Ideas about a buffer body, about simplifying funding and compliance systems, and providing certainty, about improving connections across the educational sector and with industry, business, and society.

Fundamentally it is all about improving society.

Educational institutions have always played a role. In the days of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle there wasn’t much talk about the commercialisation of research, solving grand challenges, and human capital. It was about organizing society so individuals and the state could prosper. The same themes are alive today and if this review can help Australia to re-enforce and enhance its educational system then it will have done a hugely important service for us all.

Professor Merlin Crossley is DVC Academic at UNSW Sydney