Australian universities will need to adopt a collective view when they appraise proposals from their once-in-a-generation review, according to the new head of one of the country¡¯s institutional networks.

James Cook University vice-chancellor Simon Biggs, who has been named chair of the Innovative Research Universities (IRU), said vice-chancellors and lobbyists should consider the impacts on the ¡°sector as a whole¡± when the time arrived to evaluate proposals from the Universities Accord panel.

¡°The current funding model is what it is,¡± he said. ¡°I would argue, from a small regional university, it doesn¡¯t work very well for us. That doesn¡¯t mean it doesn¡¯t work OK for others. If you change it in some way, that might work better for me [but] make it a little bit worse for somebody else.

¡°What we really need to be asking is, will the recommendations of the accord¡­satisfy the original ambition that the minister [for education, Jason Clare] provided to the panel? Is this the most effective way of spending the money? Where should we be supportive? Where should we point out the risks?¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Biggs said the IRU¡¯s diverse nature ¨C with members in both metropolitan and regional Australia, ranging in size from the University of Canberra¡¯s 17,000-odd students to Western Sydney University with almost triple that number ¨C made it a good testing ground for proposals likely to gain widespread support.

¡°It¡¯s rare that¡­anything that comes forward looks great to all of us,¡± he said. ¡°We have that ability to say, ¡®Well, it might look good for a big capital city university, but I can tell you it doesn¡¯t look good for us in North Queensland.¡¯¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Biggs will head the IRU in 2024 and 2025. He takes over as chair from former Canberra vice-chancellor Paddy Nixon, who?quit without notice?last month.

It is a pivotal time for the sector, with the 47 recommendations in the accord¡¯s final report expected to be released publicly at the end of the month, together with the government¡¯s response. ?

Professor Biggs said he expected a positive response. ¡°We should assume that the minister is looking to accept as many of the recommendations as he can. Otherwise, why go through the process? Our job is¡­to think about what does [each recommendation] mean? How will we implement it? Can we live with it?¡±

He said he expected some of the recommendations to be achievable without government intervention, while others might require little expense. The ¡°thornier¡± ideas would be about money.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°You can never say never, I guess, but it¡¯s unlikely we¡¯re going to see some bumper package of additional funding,¡± he said. ¡°I think one of the traps that universities and other people fall into frequently is just saying we need more money.¡±

Professor Biggs said a?tertiary education commission, which he expected to be recommended by the panel and supported by the government, would warrant particular scrutiny. ¡°How will that operate? Is that another layer of compliance overhead or can it replace some layers of the overhead we¡¯ve already got? Does it facilitate a holistic system that¡¯s going to work better?

¡°My [test] will be, does this make the public spend on universities more efficient and more effective?¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com