Return HECS to research graduates: committee

While HECS-style loans are being proposed for everybody from
drought-stricken farmers to budding athletes, a parliamentary committee
wants them converted into donations. HECS debts should be waived for
successful research postgraduates in order to encourage students to
choose research instead of commercial careers, according to the House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Innovation.

Reporting on its seven-month inquiry into research training in
Australian universities, the committee said successful research PhD
graduates should be granted full remission of their HECS debts once
they receive their doctorates. It said research masters graduates
should receive a 50 per cent HECS remission, and research graduates
who’ve already paid their HECS debts should receive tax deductions.

The idea had been put forward in several submissions, including one
from Innovative Research Universities Australia. “Such a provision
would represent a significant offset to income forgone for students
undertaking research training programs, and create an incentive to
drive higher completion rates,” IRUA suggested.

“For reasons of fairness, some consideration would need to be given
to compensating research graduates who paid their HECS debts fully or
partially upfront.”

It’s not clear whether this would extend right back to HECS’s 1980s
origins and generate a tax windfall for seasoned academics. Committee
chair Maria Vamvakinou conceded the idea could do with some fleshing
out. “I don’t know that we’ve really thought out how it would work,”
she told Campus Review.

“It was discussed in terms of an incentive. The report clearly
indicates that there’s a dangerous decline in young Australians wanting
to pursue higher degree research. The idea is to put forward to
government a whole series of incentives that are doable.”

The HECS suggestion is one of 38 in the committee’s report,
‘Building Australia’s Research Capacity’, released last week. They
include a grab bag of recommendations to expand on higher degree
research (HDR) stipends and scholarships, and 11 proposals to enhance
research funding.

The committee said HDR stipends should be fully indexed and
increased in value by 50 per cent, and that they should be extended to
three and a half years full-time equivalent with two optional six-month
extensions. It also called for a further extension between submission
of thesis and notification of results.

HDR students should also gain access to youth allowance, Austudy and
Abstudy, the committee said, and the federal government should work
with the states and territories to ensure research postgraduates also
gain access to public transport concessions. There should also be a
scheme to fund relocation costs for research postgraduates who enrol in
regional universities, and new incentives to encourage indigenous and
regional students into research courses.

The committee also made four recommendations to make life easier for
international research students – including increasing International
Postgraduate Research Scheme (IPRS) awards to fully fund tuition fees,
and doubling their number – and seven measures to improve the prospects
of early-career researchers who’ve completed their PhDs.

The committee more or less matched the two key Cutler report
recommendations – fully funding the cost of research, and bringing the
national investment in research in line with other OECD countries.
Other funding recommendations included a new national scholarship
scheme to lure research students into priority areas, and increasing
the funding pool for research council grants to enable a success rate
of at least 40 per cent for applicants – up from around 25 per cent at
present.

“The function of this report, first and foremost, was to increase the stipend,” Vamvakinou said.

“I couldn’t imagine we could even begin to address some of these
problems without addressing the immediate financial concerns of
students involved in HDR. It’s basically providing money to make it
easier for people to not only choose to do HDR, but to be able to live
as well. That’s the gist of what this report would like to see
addressed. The funding situation at tertiary level, especially in
relation to HDR students is parlous, as it impacts on them.”

Vamvakinou said all the committee members were passionate about
easing the difficulties for research students. “When I was at uni, you
didn’t have to worry about anything. I only paid a small fee.
Thirty-odd years later, we’ve gone to the other extreme. It’s all about
trying to find the money to sustain yourself. If we’re talking about
tapping into our best and brightest, we have to support them while
they’re doing things that we acknowledge will be of benefit to the
broader community.”

Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations president Nigel
Palmer lauded the recommendations, saying the House of Representatives
report was far more significant to research postgraduates than anything
the Bradley review was likely to deliver. “We’re in awe that the
committee has chosen to take such an enlightened approach to research
students,” Palmer told CR.

“They’re innovative changes. The committee’s invested the work to
think the issues through. They’re doing more than just throwing money
at an area. They’ve come up with a range of sensible policy measures. I
think the committee’s been very circumspect in setting achievable
goals.”

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
(FASTS) executive director Bradley Smith supported the recommendation
to extend the duration of stipends. “Three and a half years plus two
six-month extensions is a much more realistic understanding of the
actual time to do a PhD. And we strongly support increases in APA
stipends. A 50 per cent increase is very generous, and more than most
of the sector would have hoped for.”

But Smith said there needed to be more focus on attracting
international students. “Doubling the funding for the IPRS is
effectively just another 300 or so additional places. We really need to
talk about thousands, not a few hundred.

“There’s been a decline in HDR commencements for domestic students
since 1999 – and in some areas of science, since 1993. In the short
term, we really need to be ensuring we’ve got a high-quality cohort.
Recruiting international students should be part of that.”

Vamvakinou said the committee had made recommendations to address
the difficulties international students faced when they came to
Australia. “But we also made the point that it would not be done at the
expense of domestic students. Our focus, not only as universities but
also as government, must be on developing our people.

“Our country’s been a magnet for students. But now other countries
are developing their own capabilities. Just like we want the best and
brightest from the rest of the world, they’ve been taking our best and
brightest as well.”

Vamvakinou said the report wasn’t an “airy fairy” wish list of
unrealistic recommendations. She conceded it would cost a lot of money
to increase research investment as a proportion of GDP. But she said
the stipend increases and other student income measures were relatively
affordable. “We’re in a difficult economic climate, but this is an area
you can’t put at the bottom of the priority list. It will drive this
country’s economy and its capacity internationally. You have to spend
money.”

Palmer said the recommendations were practical and affordable. “A
lot of them are policy fixes that are of negligible cost and they would
have a significant positive impact. Things like allowing PhDs to be
conferred by more than one institution – that doesn’t cost a cent, but
it’s a fantastic innovation.

“We’re talking about the future of Australia’s innovation capacity.
The question’s not so much can we afford to fund these changes – it’s
can we afford not to?”

Innovation minister Kim Carr instigated the inquiry in April to
consider specific research training issues. The committee received more
than 100 submissions and conducted public hearings with 63 groups and
individuals, in six capitals and two regional centres, between June and
September.

Carr’s spokesperson has said the report will be taken into account
in the government’s white paper response to the Cutler review, which is
expected this month. The committee also released an interim version of
its report about a month ago to give the Bradley panel an opportunity
to digest its recommendations.

Go to aph.gov.au/house/committee/isi/research/report.htm