Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate my speech on the second reading debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006. To begin, I wish to quote from Hansard:

“The ARC will be reoriented, established as an independent agency within the Education, Training and Youth Affairs portfolio. So, its clear role will be as the provider of strategic policy advice to the federal government on matters related to research in our universities. The ARC will also be required to fulfil a somewhat different but very important role, that of increasing awareness and understanding of the outcomes and benefits of research amongst all Australians…

Through peer review, the ARC will be better able to identify and respond to emerging areas of excellence in research.”

These words were spoken by the current Minister for Education, Science and Training on 1 November 2000 in her second reading speech on the ARC Bill 2000.

Almost six years later, the Minister is trashing these important roles of the ARC with her ARC Amendment Bill 2006. Labor is concerned that the independence of the ARC, as well as its capabilities, will be damaged under the proposed Bill. Labor is also concerned about the Government’s political agenda behind this piece of legislation.

As a former teacher for almost 20 years I hold education dear to me, and am well aware of the need for an independent authority to assess and make recommendations on the funding of the highest quality research proposals. The ARC’s independence is also central to its role of advising the Government on research matters. Far from strengthening the ARC, as the Government claims, this bill will act to the detriment of publicly funded research in Australia.

Advances in medicine, or physics, or the humanities and social sciences would not have been possible if Government constantly meddled with research funding for political ends.

Australia has made an excellent contribution to the international community through world-class research. The Cochlear bionic ear, the VentraAssist rotary blood pump, regulatory theory in crime prevention and international peacekeeping, public health, and marine biology and coral ecology are some examples of leading research in Australia.

The amendments introduced under this bill hinder this important role. They:

(1)

Abolish the Board and transferring its functions to the CEO;

(2)

Make the CEO answerable directly and only to the Minister;

(3)

Increase Ministerial intervention in the functioning of the ARC by directly appointing all members of ARC committees, including the peer review committees, and the CEO; and

(4)

Remove the ARC’s ability to initiate inquiries into critical research matters of national interest.

The bill also extends appropriations funding to the ARC for 2008-09.

The existing ARC Act gives the ARC financial security until 2008. There was no sound reason for attaching the ARC’s core funding grant to the end of this extreme and heavy-handed Bill. But the Government knows that Labor will not stand in the way of core funding to the ARC. That is why the ARC’s appropriations have been tacked onto the end of this bill. It is this last feature of the bill which means that Labor will not oppose the ARC Bill. Labor understands that we must act responsibly and with care when it comes to funding high quality research in Australia.

However, we do have serious concerns with this legislation and I will be moving amendments that would improve transparency and limit the capacity of the Minister to impose her political whim on the ARC.

Investing sole responsibility and decision-making in a single government appointee diminishes the independence and capabilities of the ARC.

Any Minister must ultimately be accountable to the Parliament and the public for the use of taxpayer funds. Accountability is about established clear processes to determine use of taxpayer funds and maintaining oversight of that process. Accountability is not about the Minister personally signing the weekly stationery order, which is what Bill is trying to do.

The Minister for Education has come a long way from her arguments six years ago.

Despite arguing for the ARC as a provider of “strategic policy advice to the federal government on matters related to research in our universities”, The Minister has constrained the ARC’s ability to access strategic advice by abolishing the Board, assess the effectiveness of research and the ARC’s processes by stopping the ARC from initiating inquiries, and putting at risk the ARC’s integrity and international reputation by directly appointing its staff and Committee members.

The Government is relying upon the 2003 review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, known as the Uhrig review, to justify this heavy-handed Bill. The Uhrig Review recommends that Boards of statutory agencies should be removed unless the Government is prepared to devolve all responsibility to these agencies. Unfortunately, the Uhrig review’s recommendations do not take into account the political agenda and the extent of meddling and misuse of public funds by this Government. Under the guise of better governance, the ARC Amendment Bill will do the opposite.

By removing the Board and handing over power of appointment to the Minister, this bill gives total power to the Minister to meddle in the ARC operations and push this Government’s extreme ideological obsessions onto our research funding body. It is much more difficult to remove a Board of 14 eminent researchers, business leaders and community members than a CEO that the Minister will appoint herself. This buffer is important in maintaining the independent assessment of research.

It is for this reason that getting rid of the ARC Board will not deliver better governance, more transparency or proper accountability of taxpayer funds. Playing politics and pushing extreme agendas will get in the way.

There was no reason to take this approach to the ARC under the guise of the Uhrig Review of governance. The Minister for Ageing recently tabled a Bill this year to change the governance arrangements of the National Health and Medical Research Council in line with the Uhrig review but without abolishing its Board.

The Board was also given the authority to “initiat[e] inquiries, on its own motion, into matters related to research”. But this power has also been deleted from the bill before us when it transfers the powers of the Board to the CEO.

In Senate estimates in the Education, Science and Training Portfolio, it was put to a senior ARC officer whether “the ARC’s CEO [can] initiate an inquiry without the sign-off of the minister, without the minister’s permission?” The officer could not answer this simple question, and instead informed the Senate the following:

“Senator, would you mind if we took that question on notice so we can provide a clear, specific answer? I would like to be able to consult more widely, if we need to—with, say, the Australian Government Solicitor’s office and that sort of thing—because you have raised a small doubt in my mind, which did not exist until recently”.

What ‘small doubt’ does this senior officer have? The government has claimed that the CEO retains these powers under other legislation, but senior ARC officers were unable to confirm this, and instead need to seek legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. I have no doubt that this Government will do everything it can to limit the powers of the ARC if it is able to do so.

By removing or constraining the ARC’s ability to inquire into critical research issues and provide high-calibre strategic advice based on its inquiry work, the government is sending a message that it only wants advice tailored to suit its political interests. This will be at the expense of the future of research here in Australia. To generate economic growth and create new sectors, research and innovation needs to feature strongly in public policy. It is the public investment made today in research that will fuel the economy of tomorrow, support innovation in new technologies, and lead to breakthroughs in medicine and science.

If the Government actually valued the international reputation of research in Australia, it would fund it properly, and respect the integrity and independence of the ARC.

The previous Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, intervened in allocating research funds by rejecting three grants in 2004 and seven grants in 2005, which were recommended for funding by the Board. This government certainly has a record for meddling with the public service; it’s being doing this in the Department of Immigration, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and now it wants to do the same in statutory authorities. This is completely unacceptable.

The current Minister for Education has stated publicly that she will respect the decisions made by the College of Experts in recommending research proposals for funding. This Government’s record proves otherwise.

If it is the case that the Minister won’t interfere, why is she giving herself the power to meddle and interfere in the first place? The Government’s intentions with this bill are far from honest.

This Government will not be able to stop itself from taking advantage of the massive power that this bill allows. Of course we must remember that the power to veto comes on top of the power to directly appoint the CEO and members of the peer review panels.

Perhaps the Minister will no longer need to veto if she sets up the process to always give her the right answer!

With the abolition of the Board, there is an even greater expectation on the College of Experts to ensure the independent assessment of research and funding of research proposals. However, the College of Experts and the other peer review panels will now be directly appointed by the Minister.

All that the Minister has to do is to “try to ensure that the composition of the committee reflects the diversity of the interests in the matter or matters that the committee will be dealing with.”. I’m sure the Howard Government also tried to ensure that it didn’t rort the regional grants program.

It is one thing to accept or reject membership recommendations from the Board of an expert body; but giving yourself the power to effectively make the decisions is another thing altogether.

The College of Experts and the other Expert Panels play a critical role in the ARC. Whether it’s the Discovery Grants or Federation Fellowships or the ARC’s Linkage projects, the ARC has a rigorous system to evaluate quality and benefit to the national interest and make funding recommendations accordingly. Many of the expert members are internationally acclaimed researchers.

Peer review is currently international best practice, the most reliable mechanism we have today to assess high-quality research around the world. Labor wants to see peer and expert review protected for these reasons.

Now, the designated committees will be at the behest of the Education Minister and the political pursuits of the government.

The ARC should be independent and free from political interference, with a broad membership playing an important role in the direction of research in Australia.