Australian Higher Education Policy Analysis Financial ... · Australian universities expended 57.9% of their outlays on employee benefits. On a system-wide basis universities expended

Australian Higher Education Policy Analysis

Financial Performance of Australian Universities in 2014

Professor Emeritus Frank P. Larkins1 and Associate Professor Ian Marshman2

The University of Melbourne

Summary The latest publicly available financial data for Australian Universities are for 2014. Universities sourced revenues of $27.15 billion and expended $25.34 billion for their higher education and independent operations. Some 60.4% of funding came from government sources, including HECS payments. The University of Melbourne had the most revenue at $2.12 billion, equivalent to $590,440 per academic staff FTE. Five universities had revenues of more than $1.6 billion. These five highest revenue earners had a combined income that was more than the total revenues for the 22 smallest universities. The level of government support for teaching and learning (T&L) through Commonwealth Grants Schemes (CGS) and HECS payments vary from 88% for Western Sydney of all identified T&L income to 40% for Melbourne, with the system average being 67%. When only CGS funding for T&L is considered as the long term contribution by government, since HECS contributions are expected to be repaid, the range decreases from 56% for Tasmania to 26% for Melbourne, with the system average being 39%. For many universities these estimates of government contributions are likely to be upper limits, because of the use of other revenue streams to support T&L activities. The 2014 university revenues, expressed as dollars per student EFTSL unit, highlight that all the Go8 universities and a small number of other universities have revenues significantly above the system average of $27,780 per EFTSL. ANU with 2014 revenue normalised as $63,922 per EFTSL was well ahead of all other universities, principally because of special government allocations. The revenue outcomes when expressed on a per academic FTE basis are very different to the outcome expressed on a student EFTSL basis. Predominantly those institutions with a more limited research portfolio generate the highest level of funding. The research focus of the Go8 institutions appears to be diminishing their relative financial standing on a FTE basis as they increase overall research staff numbers and cross-subsidise research activities. Australian universities expended 57.9% of their outlays on employee benefits. On a system-wide basis universities expended $138,700 per FTE on academic benefits and $102,227 per FTE on non-academic benefits in 2014. Four of the Go8 universities expended less than the national average on academic benefits per FTE, but only two, Adelaide and Melbourne, reported less than the national average for non-academic benefits. The staff profiles of some Go8 universities are different from the national norm because of their research intensive nature and the scale of independent operations. All universities expended more per FTE on academic benefits than on non-academic benefits. Only two Australian Universities, UNSW and Queensland, employed more academic staff than non-academic staff. Overall universities employed 81 academic FTE for every 100 non-academic FTE in 2014.

1 School of Chemistry 2 Honorary Principal Fellow, Centre for the Study of Higher Education


Introduction The Commonwealth Department of Education has recently released the details of the 2014 performance of Australian Universities in terms of their total revenue and expenditure transactions from continuing operations (1). The reporting categories are shown in Appendix A, Table 1A. These reports are published by the Department and represent the primary audited data sources publicly available for a comparative study of the financial operations of Australian universities. Six of the Universities, Federation, RMIT, Swinburne, Victoria, Central Queensland and Charles Darwin, are dual sector institutions. For the present analysis only the financial performance of the higher education operations of these institutions is considered. For all universities revenue and expenditure associated with independent operations, including subsidiary companies, are consolidated in the higher education financial statements. In view of the very considerable growth in student participation in higher education over the past decade it is timely to review some aspects of the financial management of universities. This study follows recent work (2,3,4) examining the impact of the student demand-driven policy reforms on domestic and overseas enrolments in various course categories, especially since 2009. In this paper a ‘snapshot’ of revenue and expenditure activities for Australia’s 38 publicly funded universities in 2014 is provided. Bond as a private university does not report. It and the Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education are not included. For many universities a trend analysis over time rather than a snapshot will provide more salient information on the financial management of the institution. In another paper the time series financial management trends since the uncapping of bachelor enrolments in 2009 will be examined. It is an issue as to how universities of varying size and breadth of operations can be reasonably compared. One benchmark is to review financial performance in the context of effective fulltime student load (EFTSL), since the majority, but not all, of university operations are directed to the education of students at the undergraduate, postgraduate coursework or research training levels. Universities do conduct other activities, including research by staff and auxiliary operations, that involve both revenue and expenditure cash flows. These financial outcomes cannot be readily discerned from student educational outlays. For many universities other activities not involving students are only a small proportion of total cash flow. Using EFTSL as the reference is therefore a useful and consistent verifiable parameter to normalise financial activity for inter-university comparisons. An additional approach is to consider the staff resources deployed, including casual staff, expressed on a full time equivalent (FTE) basis for academic and non-academic staff. The financial performance of universities normalised on an academic FTE basis is also examined as the academic staff are central to generating revenue within institutions. For the present analyses, staff involved in independent operations are classified as non-academic staff as they contribute to the sources of revenue reported by universities. The student load data are sourced from the Commonwealth Department of Education (5) and staff data from a similar source (6).

University Total Revenues 2014 The latest revenue and expenditure data available for universities from current operations are for 2014. The total revenues and expenditures for all Australian Universities in 2014 were $27.15 billion and $25.34 billion respectively. The categories for reporting revenues for an Australian university are shown in Appendix A, Table A1. It is convenient to group the sources under three items: A. Australian, State& Local Government Assistance (referred to as ‘Government Assistance’ in the figures), B. All Student Fees & Charges, and C. Other Revenue (which includes

LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management Page 2 of 23 lhmartininstitute.edu.au

Financial Performance of Australian Universities in 2014 Frank P. Larkins & Ian Marshman

interest and other investment income where applicable). Similarly, the expenditure items have been grouped as, D. Academic Employee Benefits, E. Non-Academic Employee Benefits and F. Other Expenditures. A summary of the total and proportional revenues and expenditures for all Australian Universities is shown in Appendix A, Table A2 along with the total student load (EFTSL). The data are presented in figure 1 with universities ranked according to their total revenue. Figure 1. 2014 Higher Education Revenue Categories for Australian Universities Ranked by Total Revenues

Melbourne had the highest revenue in 2014 at $2.12 billion. Five universities, Melbourne, Sydney, Monash, Queensland, and UNSW had 2014 revenues in excess of $1.6 billion. No other university had revenue of more than $1.0 billion, highlighting a sharp distinction between these universities and the other 33 public universities. The combined revenue of the five highest revenue earners was more than the total revenue for 22 other Australian universities (from Newcastle to Notre Dame). Melbourne’s revenue exceeds that of the eight smallest universities combined. The variation highlights the very significant size diversity of the Australian higher education system. There is a wide variation in the respective revenue proportions for individual universities as is evident from examination of figure 1 and the data in table A2. On average government funding from various sources represent 60.4% of the revenue of Australian Universities with fees and charges accounting for a further 24.9% of total revenue and other revenue being 14.7% as defined in table A1. The fees and charges item does not include much of the income universities receive for educating domestic students as these monies, including HECS and Fee- HELP payments, are shown as revenue from government. The revenue distribution is shown graphically in figure 2. Figure 2. Average Percent 2014 Revenues by Category for Australian Universities.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Mel

bour

neSy

dney

Mon

ash

Que

ensl

and

UN

SW ANU

UW

AQ

UT

Curt

inDe

akin

Grif

fith

Adel

aide

RMIT

Mac

quar

ieW

est S

yd UTS

New

cast

leLa

Tro

beU

SA W

ollo

ngon

gTa

sman

iaJC

UC.

Stur

tSw

inbu

rne

Flin

ders

Uni

vers

ityAC

UE

Cow

anVU

TM

urdo

chSt

h Q

ldCQ

UN

. Eng

land

Canb

erra

Fede

ratio

nS.

Coa

stSt

h Cr

oss

C. D

arw

inN

otre

Dam

e2014

HE

Reve

nue

'000

s

A. Aus State&Local Gov B. All Student Fees& Charges C.Other Revenue

A. Aust, State &

Local Gov, 60.4%

B. All Student Fees and Charges,

24.9%

C. Other Revenue,

14.7%

Average Percent 2014 Revenues for Australian Universities

Page 3 of 23


The data for individual universities are presented graphically in Appendix B, Table B1 with universities ranked according to their dependence on government funding. Notre Dame proportionally is the university most heavily dependent on government funding with 81.5% of its funding from that source, while Melbourne is the least dependent with just 49.5% of its revenue coming from governments.3 Six universities are dependent on government funding for more than 75% of their revenue. They are Notre Dame, 81.5%, Southern Cross, 79.9%, New England, 78.7%, Sunshine Coast, 77.9%, ACU 76.4% and Southern Queensland 76.3%. Six of the 38 universities examined derive more than 30% of their total revenue directly from student fees and charges (item B table A2), i.e. excluding the Australian Government contribution. They are Federation, 44.4%, RMIT 36.0%, Macquarie, 35.8%, UTS 34.0%, UNSW 30.4% and Swinburne 30.2%. Four universities derive more than 20% of their total revenue, designated C Other Revenue, from non-government and non-student sources. They are Charles Darwin4 26.8%, UWA 22.2%, Melbourne 21.9% and Monash 21.8%. These revenues come from a variety of sources.

Funding Support for Teaching and Learning Activities There is frequently much discussion as to the level of government support for teaching and learning in universities. It is not a straightforward matter to use publicly available data to determine the amount of income universities receive from the Australian government directly for their core teaching and learning activities to educate students. Among the category A line items shown in table A1, the most appropriate items to consider are Commonwealth Grants Scheme and Other Grants (CGS) and HECS –HELP. Much of the HECS-HELP financial support provided by government should eventually be recovered from students, so it is not considered by some as a net government contribution. The other category A line items relate to benefits received directly by students and for research support or infrastructure developments. The FEE-HELP item, which represents loans by the Commonwealth to facilitate the enrolment of Australian students in fee-paying graduate coursework places, has not been included here for this reason. The two items, CGS and HECS-HELP (designated P: CGS-HECS in column 2 of table A3), can be combined with category B, All Student Fees and Charges, (column 4, table A3) to obtain a reasonable estimate of the total funds directly available to universities for pursue their teaching and learning (T&L) activities (shown as P+B, column 5). The data in table A3 are ranked according to the universities with the highest percentage contribution from CGS+HECS-HELP to the total T&L funds available (column 7). The percentage contribution from CGS funding only to all T&L funding is shown in column 6. There is a wide range in the proportion of government support for T&L from 84% for Western Sydney to 40% for Melbourne (column 7). The system-wide average is 61%. If only the CGS funding is considered then the contribution to T&L activities ranges from 56% for Tasmania to 26% for Melbourne. Now the system-wide average is only 39%. It is highly probable that many universities also use some income shown as ‘other revenue’ to support T&L; therefore, the estimates of government assistance are upper limits. The data can also be used to show across the sector the overall proportion of university activity devoted to teaching and learning. The percentage of all T&L funding compared with total University revenue is listed in column 8 and in figure 3.

3 Federation University is shown in table A2 as receiving only 39.5% of its funding from government sources, but the figure is misleading, because capital funds and possible other adjustments were made as a result of the transfer of the Churchill campus in 2014 from Monash. 4 Charles Darwin does have a relatively large unexplained ‘other revenue’ item increase from 2013 to 2014 that increases this percentage.



Figure 3. Teaching and Learning Revenues as a Percentage of All Revenues for Australian Universities

ACU is the university with the highest reliance on T&L revenue at 85%. Eighteen universities generate 70 percent or more of their revenue through T&L activities. By contrast Charles Darwin and all the Go8 Universities have 55% or less of their revenue directly accounted for by T&L activities (table A3, column 8). This figure is well below the system-wide average of 64%. The outcome for the G08 universities principally reflects their research-intensive character and income from other activities, including from subsidiary companies and, in some cases, investments. The profile for the T&L expenditure shown in figure 3 does highlight the wide variations in the overall educational, research and outreach missions of Australian Universities.

Relationship between Revenue and Load 2014 Universities vary significantly in the size of the student community so comparative performance measures do require some normalisation. It is of value to consider university revenue performance in terms of student load as a relative measure, recognising that there are limitations to such an analysis. The total revenues for 38 universities are plotted against the 2014 student load in figure 4. The Group of Eight (Go8) universities are highlighted in red and RMIT in green. The dotted line highlights a broad linear relationship between student load and revenue earned for many universities. The significant departures to the right of the line indicate that those universities are achieving higher revenue per EFTSL than the average. The dominance of the research-intensive Go8 universities, especially the five with the highest enrolments, is clearly evident. This issue is examined in more detail in the next section. Universities to the left of the line are receiving less than the average revenue return per student. The positions of RMIT and Monash on the graph would seem to reflect the pricing of their significant offshore student enrolments.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ACU

Char

les S

turt

Sth

Qld

RMIT

Wes

tern

Syd

Swin

burn

eCa

nber

raFe

dera

tion

E Co

wan

Deak

inG

riffit

hU

TSLa

Tro

beVi

ctor

ia N

ew E

ngla

ndQ

UT

Mac

quar

ieS

Cros

sN

. Dam

eU

ni S

AM

urdo

chW

ollo

ngon

g S

. Coa

stFl

inde

rsCu

rtin

New

cast

leAl

l Ins

titut

ions

Tasm

ania

JCU

CQU

Ade

laid

eU

NSW

Mon

ash

Sydn

ey Q

ueen

sland

ANU

Mel

bour

neU

WA

C. D

arw

in

% T

&L

of A

ll re

venu

e 20

14

Percent Teaching & Learning Revenues of All 2014 Revenues

Page 5 of 23


Figure 4. Relationship between 2014 Total Revenue and Student Load (EFTSL) for 38 Universities

Revenue per Unit of Student Load 2014 While total revenue reflects the capacity of a university to undertake a range of academically-related activities, a more informative relative statistic is the revenue available to a university expressed in terms of dollars per unit of student load. Not all the revenue obtained by universities is expended on students; nevertheless, it is one valid way to obtain a relative normalising measure of the activities of a university. This information is presented in table A4 and summarised in figure 5. A different pattern is now evident. Figure 5. Relationship between 2014 EFTSL and Dollars per unit of Student load (EFTSL) for 38 Universities

The average revenue received by universities in 2014 expressed on a per student EFTSL basis was $27,780, denoted by the dotted line. Universities to the right of the line receive more revenue than the system-wide average expressed on a per EFTSL basis. Eleven universities are in this group. The group is dominated by the

Melbourne Sydney

Monash

Queensland

UNSW

ANU UWA Adelaide

RMIT

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

- 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

Tota

l EFT

SL 2

014

Total 2014 HE Revenues $000s

Australian Universities Total HE Revenues & EFTSL 2014

Melbourne $49,770

Sydney $43,866,

Monash, $35,174

Queensland, $42,256 UNSW $41,895

ANU, $63,922

UWA, $45,375 Adelaide, $39,295

RMIT, $17,767

Tasmania, $28,793

JCU, $30,932

ACU, $19,221 VUT,

$17,132

Charles Darwin $32,809

N.Dame $18,201

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

$10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000

2014

EFT

SL

2014 HE Revenue per EFTSL

Australian Universities 2014 HE Revenue as Dollars per EFTSL

System Average $27,780



research-intensive Go8 universities, but three regionally-based universities are also above the average revenue per student. No ATN universities are in this group. The Australian National University has the highest total revenue expressed on a per student basis at $63,922, Melbourne University the second highest at $49,770 and UWA third at $45,375. Charles Darwin is an interesting case as it receives additional targeted government funding for specialist activities that impact on this analysis. ANU, partly reflecting historical funding arrangements, receives a higher proportion of its funding from government than any other Go8 university (table A2). This translates to its position as the recipient of the most funding on a per EFTSL basis. Monash is the outlier among the Go8 at $35,174, most likely because of its scale and relatively lower cost and pricing of its overseas operations. Tasmania and James Cook also have significant numbers of overseas students offshore, but nevertheless these regional universities are above the average in revenue earnings because of proportionally higher levels of per EFTSL government funding, possibly associated, at least in part, with the delivery of medical and other higher cost professional courses. The other 25 universities have 2014 revenue normalised on a per student basis of between $17,000 and $28,000, while the total EFTSL range for most of these universities is between 9,000 and 35,000 EFTSL. Most of the universities are in the range $20,000 to $28,000 per EFTSL. Four universities, ACU, Victoria, Notre Dame and RMIT receive less than $20,000 per EFTSL. Victoria at $17,132 and RMIT at $17,767 are dual sector institutions and also have significant numbers of offshore students. These factors appear to contribute to a lower per unit higher education operating cost. While noting that not all university revenue received is directly related to EFTSL, the above analysis does provide a valuable insight into why the Go8 universities have the capacity to undertake a wider range of research activities and auxiliary operations than many other Australian universities because their total revenues expressed on a per student basis are considerable more that the national average. Universities operate in a deregulated market to set undergraduate fees for overseas students and for most postgraduate coursework degrees for domestic and overseas students. The higher rankings of most Go8 universities have enabled them to set higher fee structures than most other universities and to gain more research funding. In turn, this helps sustain higher rankings.

Revenue per Academic staff unit of resource (EFT)

Another insight into the relative resourcing levels of Australian universities may be gained by observing the amount of revenue each institution generates per unit of academic staff load (EFT). Across the sector it is overwhelmingly the academic staff who are the drivers of teaching and learning and research and research training. Presenting the data on a dollars per academic staff EFT basis shows the relative success individual institutions have in generating revenue from these activities. It also shows, at a summary level, the relative level of funding available per unit of academic staff resource for investment in those and other activities, including infrastructure and other (non-academic) staff to support operations. This information is presented in Appendix A, Table A5 and summarised in figure 6.

Page 7 of 23


Figure 6. Relationship between 2014 Total Revenue and Dollars per unit of Academic Staff (Academic EFT) for 38 Australian Universities

An outcome that is very different to that for revenue per student EFTSL is now apparent. The average revenue received by universities in 2014 expressed on a per academic staff FTE basis was $489,306, denoted by the dotted line. The number of institutions above or below the average is approximately equal – 20 above and 18 below. Compared with the results on a per student EFTSL basis (figure 5 and table A4), no pattern is readily apparent from the data, but the following findings are noteworthy. The universities with the highest total revenue per academic FTE are Charles Darwin with $739,658 and Central Queensland University with $665,157. While the other eight of the ten universities with the smallest amount of overall revenue are spread throughout the field, seven of the ten earn above average rates of per academic staff revenue. The highest ranked of the Group of Eight universities, Melbourne, has the fifth highest level of funding on a per academic staff FTE basis. Three of the Go8 universities, UNSW, Adelaide and Queensland, have funding rates that are in the bottom quartile of the sector. In contrast to results on a per student EFTSL basis, the variation between the institutions with the highest and lowest rates of revenue per academic staff FTE is smaller, viz- a variation of 1.9 times between highest and lowest, compared to a variation of 2.5 times on a per student EFTSL basis.

Despite the absence of any strong pattern emerging, a number of observations might be made about information on per academic staff FTE revenue. First, there this no correlation between those institutions which generate high student tuition revenue or indeed high rates of student revenue per student EFTSL and those which generate high rates of revenue per academic staff EFT. Indeed, leaving aside Melbourne, the great majority of universities which have the highest rates of per academic staff FTE are those with relatively low rates of student tuition revenue per EFTSL. In contrast, UNSW and Queensland, both of which enjoy high levels of tuition revenue and per EFTSL rates of student revenue, are ranked in the lowest quartile on a per academic FTE.

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

C. D

arw

inCQ

UE

Cow

anW

est S

ydM

elbo

urne

RMIT

JCU

S. C

oast

Fede

ratio

nM

acqu

arie

UTS

Curt

in N

ew E

ngla

ndSy

dney

ACU

UW

AM

onas

hCa

nber

raAN

USt

h Q

ldM

urdo

chLa

Tro

beSw

inbu

rne

S Cr

oss

C St

urt

Grif

fith

New

cast

leN

. Dam

eQ

UT

Deak

inU

NSW

Tasm

ania

Ade

laid

eW

ollo

ngon

g Q

ueen

sland

USA

Vict

oria

Flin

ders

All I

nstit

utio

ns

HE Revenue Dollars per Academic FTE 2014



Secondly, the data suggest that, perhaps leaving aside Melbourne, the relatively ‘average’ standing of the Go8 universities, each of which enjoys a considerable margin over the rest of the sector in attracting fee-paying students and charging higher fees, it is the research focus of the Go8 institutions that appears to be diminishing their relative financial standing as they increase overall academic staff numbers to undertake research. This additional research activity is not resulting in proportionately higher levels of overall revenue, i.e. undertaking research is generally a cross-subsidizing activity, thereby bringing the Go8 back to the sector average in terms of financial flexibility. In contrast, when viewed through the prism of revenue per academic staff FTE, it is predominantly those institutions with a more limited research portfolio that are generating the highest rates of funding. Thirdly, across the sector significant variations in per academic staff FTE productivity are apparent. As noted above the revenue per academic staff FTE at Charles Darwin ($739,658) is 90% greater than that of Flinders ($388,317). Within the Go8, productivity at Melbourne ($590,440) in terms of per academic staff FTE revenue is 37% greater than at Queensland ($428,978). These are significant variations within the sector and presumably directly affect the level of financial flexibility available to individual institutions.

University 2014 Expenditures Australian universities collectively reported revenue in excess of expenditure to the extent of $1.81 billion from operations in 2014. Three universities, Tasmania, Victoria and Canberra, however did have expenditures in excess of revenue and therefore reported a deficit on a cash flow basis. The details are in table A2. The system-wide distribution of outlays were 30.4% on academic employee benefits, 27.5% on non-academic employee benefits and 42.1% on other expenditure as defined by the items in table A1. The system-wide distribution is shown graphically in figure 7. Figure 7. Average Percent 2014 Expenditures by Category for Australian Universities.

Again there are considerable variations between universities as shown by the data presented in table A2. These data are presented graphically in Appendix B, Table B2 with universities ranked according to expenditure on academic benefits. Three universities expend more than 35% of their revenue on academic benefits (D) – Notre Dame 38.8%, ACU 37.9%, and Flinders 37.0%. The majority of universities (20 in total) expend more than 30% of outgoings on academic benefits. Interestingly, the four universities with the highest revenues (figure 1) namely, Melbourne, Sydney, Monash and Queensland all spend less than 30% of their total expenditure on academic salaries. They expend the largest proportion of their outlays in other areas, principally because of the research intensive nature of these universities and their range of independent operations.

D. Academic Employee Benefits,

30.4% E. Non-

Academic Employee Benefits,

27.5%

E. Other Expenditure

42.1%

Average Percent 2014 Expenditures for Australian Universities

Page 9 of 23


Only one university, Southern Queensland with 35.3%, expends more than 35% of its revenue on non-academic staff benefits (E). Eleven universities spend more than 30% of their revenues on non-academic staff benefits. Eight universities spend more on non-academic benefits than academic benefits (table A6). Other expenditures (F) is the largest category for most universities and includes a very substantial miscellaneous expense item only defined as ‘other expenditure’. This item does include ‘one-off’ special entries in a few cases.

Employee Benefits

Academic and non-academic employee benefits account for some $15 billion (57.9%) of all the expenditures by Australian universities in 2014 (figure 7). The data for all the universities along with the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff numbers including casuals and the dollars per FTE are included in Appendix A, table A6 based upon published information (6). The 2014 casuals are estimates at this time. They are not separated between academic and non-academic staff in the published data so for the purpose of this exercise they are divided equally between the two categories. The actual ratio for the 2013 casual data set varies considerably by university with the average being 61% academic, 39% non-academic. Casuals represent around 16% of the total staff FTE numbers. The staff involved in independent operations, such as knowledge transfer, advancement and fund-raising, are included as non-academic staff. TAFE staff in dual sector institutions are excluded. The academic and non-academic employee benefits for all the universities are presented in table A6 and figure 8. The ranking of universities unsurprisingly predominantly aligns with the total revenues for Australian universities shown in figure 1 and table A2. Five Go8 universities each have staff benefit expenditures of more than $800 million, while the smallest two universities examined, Charles Darwin and Notre Dame, expend less than $100 million on staff benefits. Figure 8. Australian Universities 2014 Expenditures on Academic and Non-academic Employee Benefits (‘000s)

It is also informative in understanding the management structure of universities to compare the dollar benefits provided for each FTE academic with the dollar benefits provided for each FTE non-academic benefit. These data are provided in table A6 and graphically presented in figure 9.

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Mel

bour

neSy

dney

Mon

ash

Que

ensla

ndU

NSW AN

UQ

UT

UW

ACu

rtin

Deak

in A

dela

ide

Grif

fith

RMIT

Mac

quar

ieU

TSLa

Tro

beW

est S

ydN

ewca

stle

Uni

SA

Tasm

ania

Wol

long

ong

C St

urt

Swin

burn

eJC

UFl

inde

rsAC

UE

Cow

anVU

TM

urdo

ch N

ew E

ngla

ndCQ

USt

h Q

ldCa

nber

raFe

dera

tion

S Cr

oss

C Da

rwin

S. C

oast

N. D

ame

2014

Sta

ff Be

nefit

s $'0

00s

2014 Academic and Non-Academic Employee Benefits $'000s

D. Academic Benefits $'000s E. Non-Academic Benefits $'000s



Figure 9. Academic and Non-Academic Employee Benefits for Australian Universities in 2014 on a per FTE basis.

There is a wide scatter of the results with non-academic benefits per FTE ranging from $74,000 to $124,000 and academic benefits ranging from $118,000 to near $184,000. The system-wide averages were $102,227 for non-academic and $138,700 for academic benefits per FTE. The large variations do highlight the different employee profiles across the various staffing levels in Australian Universities and possible variations in the classification of staff. The data for some universities will also include one-off staff restructuring costs leading to some distortion of the outcome for 2014. Nevertheless, the system-wide variations are of particular interest. UNSW has the highest costs per non-academic FTE at $124,500, while Charles Darwin has the lowest at $71,928. From an academic benefits viewpoint Charles Darwin has the highest cost structure at $183,441 per FTE5, while Charles Sturt has the lowest at $118,037 per FTE. The outlays per non-academic FTE do not exceed the academic employee outlays for any university. Five universities report an academic cost structure in excess of $160,000 per FTE. None of these universities are G08 universities. The results for the G08 Universities are shown in table 1 along with the total revenue per all staff FTE ranked according to the academic benefits per FTE. Table 1. G08 Universities Employee Benefits and Total Revenue per FTE in 2014 with Related Ratios

University Academic Benefits

per FTE

Non-Academic Benefits

per FTE

Ratio Academic FTE to Non-Academic FTE

Ratio $ Academic Benefits to $ Non-Academic Benefits

Percentage

of Total Expenditure on Staff Benefits

Total University HE Revenue per all FTE Staff

UWA $156,629 $113,900 0.84 1.38 63.0 $233,951

Melbourne $153,598 $102,136 0.76 1.50 53.2 $255,760

Sydney $142,025 $115,374 0.95 1.23 55.6 $252,139

ANU $141,140 $121,859 0.92 1.16 56.3 $236,103

Adelaide $134,814 $98,874 0.91 1.36 58.9 $210,673

5 Contributory factors to the high number for Charles Darwin are likely to be a regional/remote loading and a higher proportion of academic staff associated with institutes.

Charles Sturt

UNSW

Federation

Monash

CQU Curtin Edith Cowan

Notre Dame

Charles Darwin

ANU

ACU

Average (138k,102k)

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

$110,000

$120,000

$130,000

$100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000

$ Be

nefit

s per

Non

-Aca

dem

ic

$ Benefits per Academic

2014 $ Benefits per Academic and Non-Academic Employee

Page 11 of 23


University Academic

Benefits

per FTE

Non-Academic Benefits

per FTE

Ratio Academic FTE to Non-Academic FTE

Ratio $ Academic Benefits to $ Non-Academic Benefits

Percentage

of Total Expenditure on Staff Benefits

Total University HE Revenue per all FTE Staff

UNSW $130,954 $124,500 1.14 1.05 58.3 $237,363

Queensland $123,420 $108,180 1.02 1.14 54.9 $216,635

Monash $120,275 $118,024 0.97 1.02 52.0 $251,070

All Universities $138,700 $102,227 0.81 1.36 57.9 $219,609

Four of the eight Go8 universities have academic benefits per FTE above the national average and six provide non-academic benefits per FTE above the national average. Adelaide and Melbourne are the two Go8 universities that report the highest numbers of non-academic staff engaged in independent operations and have the lowest non-academic benefits per FTE. There is also a wide variation in the percentage of total expenditure allocated to staff benefits. UWA has the highest proportion at 63%, while Monash has the lowest at 52%. The range of overseas operation by Monash is most likely to be a contributory factor to the low percentage. Three universities expend above the national average of 57.9%. Melbourne, as a result of significant non-academic staff adjustments, has the second lowest proportional staff benefits expenditure at 53.2%. The total revenue obtained by the Go8 universities expressed in terms of per FTE staff – academic and non-academic – is shown in column seven of table 1. Six of the eight universities have a per FTE revenue in excess of the national average with Melbourne and Sydney clearly ahead of other universities. The Go8 universities are the group with the closest alignment of their teaching and research activities, yet there is considerable variation in the scale of benefits provided to staff. There is there no correlation between the percentage expenditure on staff benefits and the total revenue that an institution receives when expressed on a per staff FTE basis. These results are despite a relatively uniform approach to enterprise bargaining being adopted by these universities over the past decade. Another way to review the data is to compare the ratio of the academic to non-academic FTE with the ratio of the academic dollar benefits to the non-academic dollar benefits. This information is presented in figure 10 based upon the data in table A5.



Figure 10. Ratio of Academic to Non-Academic FTE and Employee Dollar Benefits for 2014

There are only two Australian Universities that report having more academic than non-academic staff on an FTE basis. They are UNSW (114:100) and Queensland (102:100). On a system-wide basis Australian universities employee 81 academic FTE for every 100 non-academic FTE as shown by the red point in figure 10. Charles Darwin (45:100), Edith Cowan (53:100) and Western Sydney (58:100) have the lowest academic to non-academic staff ratios, all being below 60 academic FTE per 100 non-academic FTE. Twelve Universities provide academic financial benefits per FTE that are at least 55% more than non-academic benefits per FTE. They are all universities with relatively low research performances. Clearly, the data presented in figure 10 underlines the practice where there is a wide spread in staff profiles, especially in the number of research-only staff, and in the reward conditions among the Australian Universities. The data for all the Go8 universities are shown in table 1. Melbourne has the lowest academic to non-academic ratio at 76:100 seemingly because of its high number of staff engaged in independent operations. UNSW the highest ratio at 114:100 partly because in its return to the Commonwealth Government it does not separately report any staff engaged in independent operations. Melbourne also has the highest ratio of academic benefits to non-academic benefits at 150:100. Six of the G08 universities are below the national average.

Conclusion The analyses reported in this paper do provide a valuable insight into the annual financial outcomes of continuing operations in Australian universities for 2014. There are clearly limitations with the data sets provided by universities to the Commonwealth Department of Education in terms of consistency in defining the categories of

UNSW

Monash

CQU

Queensland

E. Cowan

Notre Dame

C Darwin

ACU

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80

Ratio

FTE

Aca

dem

ic: F

TE N

on A

cade

mic

Ratio $ Academic Benefit: $ Non-Academic Benefit

Ratio FTE Academic: Non-Academic FTE and Dollar Benefits 2014

System Average (1.36,0.81)

Page 13 of 23


reporting and in the classification of staff. There are also ‘one-off’ items that are embedded in the data published. A time series trend analysis will provide a more complete perspective of university operations. Overall, Australian universities are financially in a strong position. There are wide variations in funding sources and in benefits provided to staff by universities, seemingly to undertake similar education activities. The diversity arising from deregulation of much of the system, especially relating to postgraduate coursework fees, modes of delivery, the education of overseas students, establishing a research profile and the conduct of auxiliary operations underlies the strength of Australian higher education that is clearly manifest in the on-going financial operations of institution. Professor Emeritus Frank Larkins is a former Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Melbourne. Associate Professor Ian Marshman is the former Senior Vice Principal at the University of Melbourne.

References

1. Financial Performance of Higher Education Providers, Department of Education, https://education.gov.au/finance-publication

2. Larkins, F.P., Trends in Student Enrolments for Australia Bachelor Degrees: Is the present growth sustainable? L.H. Martin Institute, http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/05/208-enrolments-for-australian-bachelor-degrees-is-the-present-growth-strategy-sustainable. 19 May 2015

3. Larkins, F. P., Australian Higher Education Enrolments since 2009 Student Demand-Driven Policy Reforms, http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/userfiles/files/Blog/Aus_HE_Policy_Analysis_FLarkins_Aug2015.pdf. 24 August 2015

4. Larkins, F.P., Responses by Some Australian Universities to Demand-Driven Policy Reforms, http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/10/218-responses-by-some-australian-universities-to-demand-driven-policy-reforms. 13 October 2015

5. Department of Education, 2015, https://education.gov.au/student-data. 6. Department of Education, 2015, https://education.gov.au/selected-higher-education-statistics-2014-

staff-data.


https://education.gov.au/finance-publication

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/05/208-enrolments-for-australian-bachelor-degrees-is-the-present-growth-strategy-sustainable

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/05/208-enrolments-for-australian-bachelor-degrees-is-the-present-growth-strategy-sustainable

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/userfiles/files/Blog/Aus_HE_Policy_Analysis_FLarkins_Aug2015.pdf.%20%20%2024%20August%202015

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/userfiles/files/Blog/Aus_HE_Policy_Analysis_FLarkins_Aug2015.pdf.%20%20%2024%20August%202015

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/10/218-responses-by-some-australian-universities-to-demand-driven-policy-reforms

http://www.lhmartininstitute.edu.au/insights-blog/2015/10/218-responses-by-some-australian-universities-to-demand-driven-policy-reforms

https://education.gov.au/student-data

https://education.gov.au/selected-higher-education-statistics-2014-staff-data

https://education.gov.au/selected-higher-education-statistics-2014-staff-data


Appendix A

Table A1. Revenue and Expenditure Reporting Categories by Australian Universities

Total Revenues from Continuing Operations Total Expenses from Continuing Operations

A a a B b b C c c c c

Australian, State & Local Government Assistance

Australian Government Financial Assistance

Australian Governments Grants

Commonwealth Grants Scheme and Other Grants

Scholarships

Education Research Grants

Education Investment Fund and One-off Capital Grants

Australian Research Council

Other Australian Government Financial Assistance

HECS-HELP - Australian Government Payments

FEE-HELP - Australian Government Payments

SA-HELP- Australian Government Payments

State and Local Government Financial Assistance All Student Fees & Charges

Upfront Student Contributions

Fees and Charges

Continuing Education

Fee Paying Overseas Students

Fee Paying Non-Overseas Postgraduate Students

Fee Paying Non-Overseas Undergraduate Students

Fee Paying Non-Overseas Non-Award Students

Other Domestic Course Fees and Charges

Student Services and Amenities Fees

Other Fees and Charges Other Revenue

Investment Income

Royalties, Trademarks and Licenses

Consultancy and Contracts

Other Income

Donations and Bequests

Scholarships and Prizes

Non-Government Grants

Net Gain on Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment

Net Foreign Exchange Gains

Other Revenue

D E F f f f f f f

Employee Benefits and On-Costs

Academic Employee Benefits

Academic Salaries

Academic Contributions to Superannuation and Pension Schemes

Academic Payroll Tax

Academic Workers Compensation

Academic Long Service Leave Expense

Academic Annual Leave

Other Academic Employee Benefits

Non-Academic Employee Benefits

Non-Academic Salaries

Non-Academic Contributions to Superannuation and Pension Schemes

Non-Academic Payroll Tax

Non-Academic Workers Compensation

Non-Academic Long Service Leave Expense

Non-Academic Annual Leave

Other Non-Academic Employee Benefits

Other Expenditures Depreciation and Amortisation

Repairs and Maintenance

Finance Costs

Impairment of Assets

Investment Losses

Deferred Superannuation Expense

Other Expenses

Scholarships, Grants and Prizes

Non-Capitalised Equipment

Advertising, Marketing and Promotional Expenses

Net Loss on Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment

Other Expenditure

Page 15 of 23


Table A2. Total 2014 Higher Education Revenues, Expenditures and Percent Distributions for Australian Universities Ranked by Total Revenues.

2014 2014

Revenue '000s

A. Aus State & Local Gov %

B. All Student Fees& Charges %

C.Other Revenue %

2014 Expenses '000s

D. Academic Benefits %

E. Non-Academic Benefits %

F. Other Expenditure %

TOTAL EFTSL 2014

Melbourne $2,122,043 49.5% 28.6% 21.9% $1,939,101 28.5% 24.8% 46.8% 42,637

Sydney $1,897,854 52.1% 28.1% 19.9% $1,736,680 29.9% 25.7% 44.4% 43,265

Monash $1,863,947 53.3% 25.0% 21.8% $1,702,195 25.8% 26.2% 48.0% 52,992

Queenland $1,688,673 58.4% 23.4% 18.2% $1,646,027 29.5% 25.4% 45.1% 39,963

UNSW $1,658,927 56.9% 30.4% 12.7% $1,533,429 31.7% 26.6% 41.7% 39,597

ANU $996,353 61.9% 19.2% 19.0% $981,721 29.0% 27.3% 43.7% 15,587

UWA $957,093 60.0% 17.8% 22.2% $866,941 33.8% 29.1% 37.0% 21,093

QUT $907,008 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% $873,121 28.7% 30.7% 40.6% 34,740

Curtin $889,640 56.7% 27.7% 15.6% $839,922 32.5% 27.6% 39.8% 35,310

Deakin $855,808 66.0% 24.8% 9.2% $792,484 31.3% 28.7% 40.0% 35,272

Griffith $845,342 62.5% 26.2% 11.4% $767,855 32.2% 30.7% 37.1% 33,058

Adelaide $840,373 61.6% 24.5% 13.8% $785,943 32.6% 26.3% 41.1% 21,386

RMIT $807,939 56.1% 36.0% 8.0% $735,682 31.2% 27.6% 41.2% 45,475

Macquarie $764,670 53.1% 35.8% 11.2% $719,936 29.6% 25.0% 45.4% 28,691

West Syd $741,210 74.3% 12.6% 13.1% $635,281 29.3% 29.0% 41.7% 32,912

UTS $700,003 54.7% 34.0% 11.3% $661,465 30.2% 29.9% 39.9% 27,747

Newcastle $676,144 65.5% 16.8% 17.7% $626,238 29.2% 29.0% 41.9% 25,582

La Trobe $665,878 61.3% 21.4% 17.3% $652,495 31.7% 27.7% 40.5% 27,436

USA $583,716 66.6% 22.1% 11.3% $555,868 34.6% 28.1% 37.3% 22,495

W’gong $553,588 60.6% 29.0% 10.4% $533,230 34.0% 25.4% 40.6% 23,502

Tasmania $544,215 74.1% 15.7% 10.2% $544,512 30.8% 28.3% 41.0% 18,901

JCU $509,474 69.1% 19.5% 11.4% $448,354 28.1% 27.0% 45.0% 16,471

C.Sturt $494,152 65.9% 25.5% 8.6% $454,201 27.0% 30.0% 43.0% 22,018

Swinburne $466,108 60.9% 30.2% 7.0% $450,074 29.1% 24.4% 46.5% 22,131

Flinders $435,109 74.9% 18.5% 6.6% $419,248 37.0% 30.8% 32.1% 16,428

ACU $413,610 76.4% 16.4% 7.2% $376,197 37.9% 29.7% 32.4% 21,519

E Cowan $391,569 68.6% 20.6% 10.8% $364,074 29.3% 31.6% 39.1% 17,272

VUT $342,866 69.1% 21.8% 9.0% $343,431 34.4% 31.3% 34.3% 20,013



2014 2014

Revenue '000s

A. Aus State & Local Gov %

B. All Student Fees& Charges %

C.Other Revenue %

2014 Expenses '000s

D. Academic Benefits %

E. Non-Academic Benefits %

F. Other Expenditure %

TOTAL EFTSL 2014

Murdoch $335,458 54.4% 28.9% 16.7% $327,353 28.9% 31.0% 40.2% 16,392

Sth Qld $307,647 76.3% 20.6% 3.2% $260,119 31.3% 35.3% 33.4% 14,385

CQU $298,323 62.3% 30.1% 7.6% $264,024 30.6% 26.2% 43.2% 12,300

N. England $291,448 78.7% 16.6% 4.7% $290,572 27.9% 30.2% 41.8% 11,659

Canberra $258,037 65.8% 24.4% 9.8% $260,011 31.4% 27.0% 41.6% 11,731

Federation $249,745 39.5% 44.4% 16.2% $237,957 23.8% 23.6% 52.5% 9,759

S. Coast $215,370 77.9% 12.5% 9.6% $176,834 29.4% 32.3% 38.3% 7,962

Sth Cross $211,019 79.9% 12.5% 7.7% $197,776 30.9% 30.8% 38.3% 9,148

C. Darwin $201,187 57.1% 16.1% 26.8% $186,021 26.8% 23.2% 50.0% 6,132

Notre Dame

$166,121 81.5% 14.9% 3.6% $149,274 38.8% 24.7% 36.5% 9,127

All Institutions

$27,147,667 60.4% 24.9% 14.7% $25,335,646 30.4% 27.5% 42.1% 977,237

Page 17 of 23


Table A3. Various contributions to Teaching and Learning Revenues for Australian Universities 2014 Ranked by Government Support for Teaching and Learning.

P. CGS + HECS-HELP$ '000s

% of Total Aus Gov Assistance

B. Fees and Charges $'000s

Total for T&L (P+B) $'000s

% CGS of T&L % Gov (CGS + HECS) for T&L

% T&L of All Revenue

West Syd $486,143 88% $93,140 $579,283 50% 84% 78%

S Cross $123,381 74% $26,299 $149,680 52% 82% 71%

S. Coast $121,620 74% $27,013 $148,633 53% 82% 69%

ACU $293,830 94% $67,657 $361,487 51% 81% 87%

N. Dame $95,263 71% $24,720 $119,983 55% 79% 72%

New England

$167,308 74% $48,417 $215,725 49% 78% 74%

Tasmania $258,085 66% $85,290 $343,375 56% 75% 63%

Newcastle $343,462 78% $113,834 $457,296 49% 75% 68%

Sth Qld $182,494 79% $63,240 $245,734 49% 74% 80%

C Darwin $90,296 84% $32,409 $122,705 54% 74% 61%

VUT $205,667 87% $74,826 $280,493 44% 73% 82%

Flinders $219,024 69% $80,332 $299,356 46% 73% 69%

E Cowan $217,401 85% $80,781 $298,182 47% 73% 76%

La Trobe $347,242 86% $142,379 $489,621 42% 71% 74%

C Sturt $282,658 87% $125,916 $408,574 45% 69% 83%

USA $286,562 76% $128,941 $415,503 43% 69% 71%

JCU $213,367 62% $99,244 $312,611 46% 68% 61%

Canberra $134,238 82% $62,916 $197,154 42% 68% 76%

Deakin $435,706 78% $212,062 $647,768 40% 67% 76%

QUT $434,694 78% $226,452 $661,146 38% 66% 73%

Griffith $416,292 80% $221,319 $637,611 39% 65% 75%

Swinburne $233,034 82% $140,923 $373,957 36% 62% 80%

CQU $147,480 79% $89,733 $237,213 40% 62% 80%

ANU $303,876 50% $191,076 $494,952 52% 61% 50%

UWA $265,785 51% $170,492 $436,277 38% 61% 46%

Curtin $372,479 76% $246,603 $619,082 38% 60% 70%

Murdoch $141,277 79% $97,103 $238,380 37% 59% 71%

Wollongong $226,539 69% $160,568 $387,107 35% 59% 70%

Adelaide $267,726 54% $206,079 $473,805 36% 57% 56%



P. CGS + HECS-

HELP$ '000s % of Total Aus Gov Assistance

B. Fees and Charges $'000s

Total for T&L (P+B) $'000s

% CGS of T&L % Gov (CGS + HECS) for T&L

% T&L of All Revenue

RMIT $364,920 81% $290,500 $655,420 31% 56% 81%

Queensland $493,340 52% $394,598 $887,938 35% 56% 53%

UTS $292,711 77% $238,222 $530,933 33% 55% 76%

Monash $517,276 54% $465,115 $982,391 33% 53% 53%

Macquarie $283,449 70% $273,560 $557,009 28% 51% 73%

Sydney $465,391 48% $532,999 $998,390 30% 47% 53%

UNSW $427,721 47% $504,479 $932,200 29% 46% 56%

Federation $87,523 89% $110,785 $198,308 28% 44% 79%

Melbourne $407,007 41% $607,197 $1,014,204 26% 40% 48%

All Institutions

$10,652,267 67% $6,757,219 $17,409,486 39% 61% 64%

Page 19 of 23


Table A4. University 2014 HE Revenue Dollars Normalised to Student Load Ranked in Order of Highest Dollars per EFTSL

Revenue per EFTSL 2014

TOTAL EFTSL 2014

Revenue per EFTSL 2014

TOTAL EFTSL 2014

ANU $63,922 15,587 UTS $25,228 27,747

Melbourne $49,770 42,637 Curtin $25,195 35,310

UWA $45,375 21,093 N. England $24,998 11,659

Sydney $43,866 43,265 La Trobe $24,270 27,436

Queensland $42,256 39,963 Deakin $24,263 35,272

UNSW $41,895 39,597 CQU $24,254 12,300

Adelaide $39,295 21,386 Wollongong $23,555 23,502

Monash $35,174 52,992 Sth Cross $23,067 9,148

C. Darwin $32,809 6,132 E Cowan $22,671 17,272

JCU $30,932 16,471 West Syd $22,521 32,912

Tasmania $28,793 18,901 C.Sturt $22,443 22,018

S. Coast $27,050 7,962 Canberra $21,996 11,731

Macquarie $26,652 28,691 Sth Qld $21,387 14,385

Flinders $26,486 16,428 Swinburne $21,061 22,131

Newcastle $26,430 25,582 Murdoch $20,465 16,392

QUT $26,108 34,740 ACU $19,221 21,519

USA $25,949 22,495 Notre Dame $18,201 9,127

Federation $25,591 9,759 RMIT $17,767 45,475

Griffith $25,571 33,058 VUT $17,132 20,013

All Institutions

$27,780 977,237



Table A5. Australian Universities 2014 Revenue expressed on a per Academic FTE basis ranked in order of highest unit revenue

2014 Academic +50% Casuals

2014 Total Revenues $'000s

2014 Revenue per Academic FTE

Charles Darwin 272 $201,187 $739,658

CQU 448.5 $298,323 $665,157

E Cowan 600 $391,569 $652,615

Western Sydney 1215 $741,210 $610,049

Melbourne 3594 $2,122,043 $590,440

RMIT 1468 $807,939 $550,367

JCU 938.5 $509,474 $542,860

Sunshine Coast 399 $215,370 $539,774

Federation 465 $249,745 $537,086

Macquarie 1424 $764,670 $536,987

UTS 1336 $700,003 $523,954

Curtin 1706 $889,640 $521,477

New England 559 $291,448 $521,374

Sydney 3659.5 $1,897,854 $518,610

ACU 799.5 $413,610 $517,336

UWA 1872.5 $957,093 $511,131

Monash 3650 $1,863,947 $510,670

Canberra 512.5 $258,037 $503,487

ANU 2019.5 $996,353 $493,366

Southern Qld 628 $307,647 $489,884

Murdoch 687 $335,458 $488,294

La Trobe 1368 $665,878 $486,753

Swinburne 967 $466,108 $482,014

Southern Cross 441 $211,019 $478,501

Charles Sturt 1039 $494,152 $475,603

Griffith 1786.5 $845,342 $473,183

Newcastle 1441.5 $676,144 $469,056

N. Dame 362.5 $166,121 $458,265

QUT 1989.5 $907,008 $455,897

Deakin 1897 $855,808 $451,138

UNSW 3717 $1,658,927 $446,308

Tasmania 1225 $544,215 $444,257

Adelaide 1902 $840,373 $441,836

Wollongong 1268.5 $553,588 $436,412

Queensland 3936.5 $1,688,673 $428,978

USA 1370.5 $583,716 $425,915

Victoria 818.5 $342,866 $418,896

Flinders 1120.5 $435,109 $388,317

All Institutions 55482 $27,147,667 $489,306

Page 21 of 23


Table A6. Australian Universities 2014 Academic and Non-Academic Employee Benefits, Full Time Equivalent Staff Numbers and Dollars per Employee Ranked by Academic Benefits per Employee.

2014

D. Academic Employee Benefits $'000s

FTE Academic +50% Casuals

2014 $ Benefits per Academic

E. Non-Academic Employee Benefits '000s

FTE Non Acad + 50% Casual+ Independent Operations

2014 $ Benefits per Non-academic

C. Darwin $49,896 272 $183,441 $43,157 600 $71,928

CQU $80,746 448.5 $180,036 $69,291 680.5 $101,824

ACU $142,404 799.5 $178,116 $111,766 1217.5 $91,800

E Cowan $106,643 600 $177,738 $115,035 1142 $100,731

Curtin $273,316 1706 $160,209 $232,178 2322 $99,991

N. Dame $57,954 362.5 $159,873 $36,798 428.5 $85,876

Canberra $81,691 512.5 $159,397 $70,278 660.5 $106,401

UWA $293,287 1872.5 $156,629 $252,687 2218.5 $113,900

RMIT $229,171 1468 $156,111 $203,335 2017 $100,811

Melbourne $552,031 3594 $153,598 $480,347 4703 $102,136

West Syd $186,000 1215 $153,086 $184,306 2100 $87,765

La Trobe $207,092 1368 $151,383 $180,839 1749 $103,396

UTS $199,888 1336 $149,617 $197,836 1752 $112,920

Macquarie $213,042 1424 $149,608 $179,700 1565 $114,824 New England $81,134 559 $145,141 $87,860 834 $105,348

VUT $118,093 818.5 $144,280 $107,647 995.5 $108,134

Wollongong $181,249 1268.5 $142,885 $135,562 1462.5 $92,692

Sydney $519,740 3659.5 $142,025 $446,209 3867.5 $115,374

ANU $285,032 2019.5 $141,140 $268,151 2200.5 $121,859

USA $192,537 1370.5 $140,487 $156,056 1752.5 $89,048

S Cross $61,142 441 $138,644 $60,901 682 $89,298

Flinders $155,257 1120.5 $138,560 $129,336 1362.5 $94,926

Griffith $247,254 1786.5 $138,401 $235,468 2631.5 $89,481

Murdoch $94,537 687 $137,608 $101,360 998 $101,563

Tasmania $167,439 1225 $136,685 $153,830 1592 $96,627

Swinburne $131,038 967 $135,510 $109,836 1023 $107,367

Adelaide $256,417 1902 $134,814 $206,351 2087 $98,874

JCU $125,764 938.5 $134,005 $120,966 1210.5 $99,931

UNSW $486,755 3717 $130,954 $407,364 3272 $124,500

Deakin $247,968 1897 $130,716 $227,268 2217 $102,512

S. Coast $51,975 399 $130,263 $57,049 622 $91,719

Sth Qld $81,471 628 $129,731 $91,820 1034 $88,801

Newcastle $182,600 1441.5 $126,674 $181,443 1848.5 $98,157

QUT $250,586 1989.5 $125,954 $268,009 2662.5 $100,661

Queensland $485,844 3936.5 $123,420 $417,411 3858.5 $108,180

Federation $56,733 465 $122,006 $56,185 763 $73,637

Monash $439,002 3650 $120,275 $445,424 3774 $118,024

C Sturt $122,640 1039 $118,037 $136,264 1532 $88,945 All Institutions $7,695,368 55482 $138,700 $6,965,323 68136 $102,227



Appendix B

Figure B1. Percentage of 2014 Revenue Ranked by All Government Funding

Figure B2. Percentage of 2014 Expenditure Ranked by Academic Benefits

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Not

re D

ame

Sth

Cros

sN

. Eng

land

S. C

oast

ACU

Sth

Qld

Flin

ders

Wes

t Syd

Tasm

ania

JCU

VUT

E Co

wan

USA

Deak

inC.

Stur

tCa

nber

raN

ewca

stle

Grif

fith

QU

TCQ

UAN

UAd

elai

deLa

Tro

beSw

inbu

rne

Wol

long

ong

All I

nstit

utio

nsU

WA

Que

ensl

and

C. D

arw

inU

NSW

Curt

inRM

ITU

TSM

urdo

chM

onas

hM

acqu

arie

Sydn

eyM

elbo

urne

Fede

ratio

n

Percent 2014 HE Revenue Ranked by All Government Funding

A. Aus State&Local Gov % B. All Student Fees& Charges % C.Other Revenue %

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Not

re D

ame

ACU

Flin

ders

USA

VUT

Wol

long

ong

UW

AAd

elai

deCu

rtin

Grif

fith

UN

SWLa

Tro

beCa

nber

raSt

h Q

ldDe

akin

RMIT

Sth

Cros

sTa

sman

iaCQ

UAl

l Ins

titut

ions

UTS

Sydn

eyM

acqu

arie

Que

ensl

and

S. C

oast

E Co

wan

Wes

t Syd

New

cast

leSw

inbu

rne

ANU

Mur

doch

QU

TM

elbo

urne JCU

N. E

ngla

ndC.

Stur

tC.

Dar

win

Mon

ash

Fede

ratio

n

Percent 2014 HE Expenditure Ranked by Academic Benefits

D. Academic Benefits % E. Non-Academic Benefits % F. Other Expenditures %

Page 23 of 23

Documents

Australian Higher Education Policy Analysis Financial ... · Australian universities expended 57.9% of their outlays on employee benefits. On a system-wide basis universities expended