
The extraordinary brawl at ANU over the state of its finances has largely ignored a crucial income stream – the $200m plus the federal government grants it every year
ANU management has been trying to make a case that the university needs to reduce its cost base by $250m, including $100m in staff costs, but there is considerable dispute over whether the cuts are needed. Job losses are fiercely disputed on campus, as are proposed organisation changes. The overall restructure process looks like it is on the way to the Fair Work Commission.
As part of his campaign for a staff-elected seat on the University Council, ANU economist Rohan Pitchford got to the heart of the matter last month, when he had a good look at the books and said much depended on whether the University continued to receive its long-standing block grant.
He concluded, “on the fundamental question of whether the university is on a sound financial footing, the answer is clear: ANU is financially stable, though this stability is contingent in the continued receipt of the National Institute Grant.”
That is quite a contingency. The NIG was $220m in 2023. A big contribution to the university’s $1.6bn in consolidated revenue and headline surplus of $135m. The underlying result was a $128m deficit. The 2024 results will only be available when the Government gets around to tabling the report in Federal Parliament.
The NIG dates from ANU’s founding by the feds in 1946 to be a national research resource, addressing questions of national importance, which the State-administered universities did not.
ANU still makes the same sell. “The National Institutes Grant is a crucial source of reliable funding to support the long-term pure and applied research that marks ANU as a nationally and internationally significant research institution. ANU research has been translated into transformational outcomes and provides invaluable benefits for Australia and the world.”
So does research at the big five , Monash U and the universities of Melbourne, NSW, Queensland and Sydney.
While it would upset the ANU community, the $220m could be added to the Australian Research Council/National Medical Research Council funding pot. Or the NIG could be allocated by tender. The first of the “areas of national significance” for the NIG, mentioned in the University Act is, “maintaining and enhancing distinctive concentrations of excellence in research and education, particularly in areas of national importance to Australia.” Perhaps with the exception of physics, all of the top five research universities would be competitive.
FC asked ANU CFO Michael Lonergan about the importance of the NIG to the university’s finances but he did not reply. However the university’s media office did, stating ANU “makes long-term investments in our academic capability that cannot be achieved through standard university funding mechanisms.”
Which does not address the obvious question – is $200m to one university on the basis of an 80 year-old agreement the best use of public research funding?