Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I also seek leave to incorporate my speech on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 on the basis that I, like many others tonight, want to expedite the proceedings of the Senate. Having said that, a lot of work has gone into discussion, debate and the preparation of amendments relating to this particular piece of legislation. I do it to save the Senate time, not because it is a preferable option.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Last year, the Education, Science and Training Minister shook the Australian research community by vetoing grants for projects already recommended by the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) College of Experts. This followed previous vetoes in 2004.

This blatant intervention in the ARC’s internationally recognised peer review system of grants allocation, provoked much alarm among grant applicants, particularly given the Minister provided no explanation for the vetoes.

Feedback to help researchers improve applications was not offered, just the insinuation that the rejected projects, all in the humanities and social sciences areas, were somehow frivolous and unworthy of funding.

The vacuum of information surrounding the rejection of these grants exposed the Government to accusations of political interference and stirred much speculation on the nature of the projects - were they politically sensitive and what kind of research was the Government refusing to fund?

Requests from Group of 8 and the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) to disclose the projects were ignored. The Minister has not yet responded to my request last year for details on these projects.

The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006, provides no safeguards to prevent such interference happening in the future. In fact, it may facilitate further Ministerial intervention in the operations of the ARC by bestowing on the Minister extraordinary power in relation to the Council’s Committees. The Minister can establish, determine function and membership of, and ultimately dissolve “Designated Committees”.

There is no provision to prevent the vetoing on projects already approved by the College of Experts. Currently, and under the new legislation, projects with politically sensitive research subjects such as embryonic stem cells may be vetoed without explanation.

As the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) asserted, “if the Minister has the power to not accept a recommendation of the ARC, the minister must accept the obligation to: ensure that the criteria and rules for ARC programs are explicit, comprehensive and confirm excellence as the fundamental determinant; and, provide good reasons to parliament, including naming the specific area and topic of research so that the public and researchers are aware of what areas the Government will not support” without identifying the applicant or institution.¹

The Minister’s attacks on the ARC appeared to be a knee-jerk response to superficial media commentary which has criticised and ridiculed past projects approved and funded by the ARC, and arguably, by extension, the Minister overseeing this process.

The tampering with the College of Expert’s decisions neglects the fact that the ARC’s process of peer review is already a rigorous, comprehensive process that demands a high level of commitment from its assessors. In addition, it is no easy feat to apply for a grant and the failure rate is high – the ARC already does a scrupulous job of weeding out unworthy applications.

As one Deputy Vice-Chancellor complained “I know that people just don’t just put in applications about mindless crap. There’s too much effort involved.”²

Such opaque intervention can only have the effect of researchers censoring their projects, avoiding certain research topics in fear of rejection. Without being privy to the reasons behind the vetoes, all ground becomes shaky, making for a demoralised research sector, discouraged from making the leaps of faith necessary for new discoveries.

Research will be confined to those perceived as sanctioned by the Government, rendering the ARC irrelevant.

In effect, the Government is usurping the ARC’s authority on what merits research.

The former Minister’s announcement last year of the abolition of the ARC Board, purportedly in accordance with the recommendations of the Uhrig Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, in addition to other provisions in this legislation, will leave the ARC’s peer review process open to even further intervention from the Minister of the day.

Given the recent legislation also based on Uhrig’s recommendations that, in fact, arguably afforded greater independence to the NHMRC, it appears the Review has been applied inconsistently. This legislation, in fact, reduces the ARC’s autonomy in that the CEO will be the only buffer between the peer review process and the Minister, where previously the Board offered some, albeit limited, independent oversight in the allocation of funding.

In addition, this legislation places the CEO in a precarious position. Instead of a 14 member Board, the Minister will adopt or reject the recommendations of just one person - the CEO - who is appointed and sacked by the Minister.

Although the current Minister has expressed support for the peer review process, subsequent Ministers may have a different philosophy. This legislation will provide them with the latitude to undermine further critical components of the peer review process such as the College of Experts, whose members are internationally recognised experts.

This legislation renders the future of the College of Experts uncertain. While the Explanatory Memorandum states it will be maintained as a Designated Committee and will “continue to play a key role in the peer review process”, this has not been enshrined in the legislation.³

Even if it is maintained as a Designated Committee, the College of Experts will be exposed to the same Ministerial intervention as other committees, with the Minister able to decide on its membership, function, and dissolution.

Far from DEST’s claim that “there is no extension or diminishment of that power with this Bill”, it actually transfers the power to appoint members to committees from the ARC, subject to Ministerial approval, to the Minister.

In addition, the Minister also assumes responsibility to establish, determine functions and dissolve designated committees.

Only last year, the former Minister made controversial appointments of three lay people to the Quality and Scrutiny Committee. These appointments were to perform a “community representative function”, although it was unclear how the chosen three fulfilled this function. One of the three described the appointment process as “quite bizarre”.⁴

The role played by the lay members within the Quality and Scrutiny Committee was hazy and ill-defined, but was beefed up following complaints by one of the three that his role was “useless”, a “PR exercise” and “purely window dressing”.⁵

Given the legislation expands the Minister’s powers to make appointments to ARC committees, this should serve as a cautionary tale.

The only apparent safeguard is that the Minister must “try to ensure that the composition of the committee reflects the diversity of interests” in choosing members, however, there is no specific direction or guidelines to facilitate this process.’⁶

Despite this emphasis on diversity of Committee membership, the requirement to have a minimum of five members of a committee is being dropped. Allowing for fewer members will only compromise attempts to maintain diversity of the ARC’s committees.

There is too much in this bill that remains unclear to stakeholders, even to DEST and to the ARC itself.

The role and function of the proposed Advisory Committee has not been explained sufficiently. It is apparent it will offer “high level strategic advice”, however, terms of reference and membership do not appear to be decided.

The scope and nature of the proposed Statement of Expectation, to be issued by the Minister, is also unclear, as is whether the research sector will be consulted in the formulation of the statement. Meanwhile, the legislation demands the ARC respond to the Minister’s statement through a Statement of Intent, thus creating more red tape and providing increased opportunity for the Minister to prescribe the ARC’s activities.

The fact that both DEST and the ARC itself are uncertain about the extent of the bill’s provisions should be ringing loud and persistent alarm bells.

Despite my questioning of DEST at the Committee hearing and the ARC at Budget Estimates, I am yet to receive a clear answer on whether the ARC’s CEO will have the ability to initiate inquiries without seeking Ministerial approval. While FASTS interpreted the new legislation as allowing this, DEST’s submission suggested it did not.

The Chair’s Report on the bill sheds no light on this power, ambiguously claiming “this does not preclude the CEO from initiating inquiries”.⁷

In its submission, FASTS asserted that ability of the ARC to initiate inquiries without being required to seek the Minister’s approval, is a critical function of the ARC that allows it to fulfil its role of providing high level advice on research matters to the Minister.

It is ridiculous that, despite a Committee hearing and Estimates questions on this provision, we have reached the debate stage of this bill none-the-wiser. How can the legislation be debated when no one knows for certain what this bill facilitates?

In regard to the Chair’s Report, it was disappointing to note that it omits any acknowledgement the input of stakeholders who presented submissions to the inquiry. These highly-respected, peak groups sacrificed time and resources to prepare detailed analysis of the provisions of this bill and to appear as witnesses at the Committee hearing, yet none were referred to in the Report.

With around 20% of Commonwealth funding support for research supplied by the ARC, the research community is heavily reliant upon it.⁸ Despite the undermining of the processes of our peak grants body and the low level of government spending on research —Australia’s national research efforts in terms of Government expenditure are at their lowest levels for 25 years as a percentage of GDP”, and while the recent budget made some one-off grants to specific research projects, there was no long-term, sustained investment in research - Australia’s research output and reputation have remained strong.⁹ However, continue neglect by the government and an undermined ARC can only have negative impact on the sector.

It is critical we get the governance of the ARC right to ensure the confidence of the research sector in this process is maintained. This is unlikely to be effected by the provisions of this bill.

This change in governance will bestow too much power on the minister and has too few safeguards to maintain accountability and transparency.

The value of peer review is obvious. It “ensures that the reasons for funding or publishing particular research are objective, rather than dependent on external influences such as the relevance of particular findings to political or commercial concerns. It is this process that ensures research excellence rather than ideologically driven research is supported.”¹⁰

Unfortunately, under this legislation, peer review may once again fall victim to the Minister’s whims and the reputation of the ARC will be the loser.

I will be moving amendments to address the concerns I have outlined.

I will move: that the College of Experts is enshrined in the legislation in its own right; that its functions and terms and conditions are clearly set out; and, that its membership is decided by the ARC as opposed to the Minister.

In addition, I will move that the ARC CEO has the ability to initiate inquiries without requiring Ministerial approval.

——————————

¹ FASTS submission to Senate Inquiry into Australian Research Amendment Bill 2006

² Gideon Haigh “The Nelson Touch: Research Funding: the New Censorship” The Monthly Magazine Issue 12 May 2006

³ Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 - Explanatory Memorandum

⁴ Gideon Haigh “The Nelson Touch: Research Funding: the New Censorship” The Monthly Magazine Issue 12 May 2006

⁵ Ibid

⁶ Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006

⁷ Government Senator’s Report

⁸ FASTS submission to Senate Inquiry into Australian Research Amendment Bill 2006

⁹FASTS media release “CSIRO must make hard decisions” 30/1/06

¹⁰National Tertiary Education Union submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006