Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

This bill includes appropriation of ARC funding for 2008-09 and a range of other measures.

The bill also amends the ARC Act 2001 in many ways to implement changes to the ARC governance arrangements as recommended in the Uhrig Review.

The bill provides for the “retirement” ( a nicer way of putting abolition) of the ARC Board; the Minister to appoint a CEO directly responsible to the Minister; establishment of new governance arrangements; it updates annual funding caps.

The bill allows for the creation of and appointments to designated committees by the Minister. These committees provide advice to the CEO to pass on to the Minister.

The ARC will have to provide an annual strategic plan and annual report to the Minister who will issue a statement of expectations to the ARC who in turn will respond with a statement of intent.

In short, the primary purpose of this bill is to abolish the ARC Board and give their powers to either the CEO or the Minister. Since the CEO will be appointed by the Minister, with no necessity to seek or take advice, the Minster will clearly call the shots.

These changes will effectively give the Education and Science Minister complete control over ARC funding and operational processes.

In so doing it may well be seen as threatening the integrity of the ARC as an independent institution largely free of political manipulation.

While we might agree that public bodies such as the ARC need to be accountable and transparent, we do not believe that this bill achieves this in any way, shape or form. It has the potential to do the exact opposite in fact. We believe substantial amendments are necessary to achieve accountability and transparency.

Government claim the need to replace the Board with a CEO is to remove confusion between the Board and CEO. This seems to be a highly dubious claim.

The abolition of the Board is unnecessary – as expressed by the AVCC in their submission to the Senate Inquiry into the provisions of this bill ( Submission 5 page 2) : “…the role of the Board is to provide leadership concerning the organisation, assure accountability for decisions arising and advise the CEO on matters of strategic importance; whereas the role of the CEO is to implement such directions howsoever he/she may see fit. There is a separation between governance and process.” This seems a fairly clear distinction to me, so why the confusion? Just what confusion has there been in practice? This would appear to be just government beat up.

The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee inquired into the provisions of this bill and tabled their report on 2nd June 2006.

The Opposition Senators Report summed up the issues quite clearly, albeit in words that the government does not want to hear or listen to.

In it the Opposition senators say that this bill has the potential to undermine the integrity and independence of the ARC, as the Board has been a buffer between Government politically driven agendas and an independent research body.

It will, if passed unchanged allow the government of the day to tamper with the work of the ARC. And this certainly happened under the most recent past Minister for Education and Science.

It will not, as claimed by the government, improve governance – it gives far too much power to the Minister for good governance. The past Minister Nelson actually interfered frequently in ARC funding matters and vetoed no less than 11 of the ARC funding decisions in 2 years. This bill would open the way for even more Ministerial intervention and interference in our national scientific research program.

Submissions made to the Senate Inquiry raised serious concerns about the ability of the ARC to remain independent in carrying out its role under this bill, with resulting loss of confidence in the ARC both at home and abroad.

The bill was however drafted with no proper consultation with stakeholders so their views on such matters as the independence of the ARC got no recognition.

Had they consulted, the government may well have got better advice on the needs to improve the ARC, but they would also have found that the stakeholders strongly support the current Board structure rather than an executive management template.

In their submission to the Senate Inquiry The Australian Academy of the Humanities said “ … there is considerable value in having a Board rather than simply a line management model, particularly in functions which require a strong reputation and maintenance of integrity, and to forestall any suggestion that decisions are being made on other than appropriate grounds.” ( Prof McIntyre, Committee Hansard 4th May p5).

Such a view, that a Board structure was highly preferable to a CEO and executive management structure was strongly supported in submissions and by witnesses appearing before the committee.

The Opposition Senators could also see no reason, other than political motives, in attaching the appropriation of funding for 2008 – 09 to this bill. This Government is well aware that we do not block core funding for organisations, which is why they have attached the appropriation of funding to such an otherwise bad bill.

This, the inclusion of funding, is the only reason that we will not oppose the ARC Bill, but we are of the strong belief that major amendments are needed if this bill is not to damage the ARC both in terms of operations and reputation.

It is yet another example of a bill framed and drafted by an arrogant government hell bent on pushing through a political agenda while they have control of the numbers, whatever damage is done to our national research performance and reputation.

The political reality of this government is that it has shown itself to be most willing and eager to silence dissent and undermine those with contrary views. It has done this ruthlessly in Indigenous Affairs, Workplace relations and student unions. This bill is yet another example of this – it will do nothing to deliver better governance or accountability but simply open the door for political manipulation of the ARC.

This bill enables the Minister not only to appoint the CEO but also members of committees, including the College of Experts. All committees become “designated committees” and as such the Minister has unfettered powers of appointment. Again what more can we say save this leaves the door even wider open for political intervention and manipulation.

It is hardly any wonder then that the NTEU conveyed to the Committee concerns from international scholars who provided peer assessed grant applications which were often rejected by the former Minister – this resulted in uncertainty and lack of confidence in the approval process. ( Opposition Senator Report page 5 para 2.27)

Furthermore the Committee’s attention was drawn to a point made by the Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology Cooperation in their submission ( Submission 3 page 1). They claim that this bill as it stands will prevent Australian researchers from participating in international research programs.

Again, hardly a good point to have standing against us internationally and something that, had the bill been drafted with more consultation and consideration of what was being said, could have been avoided.

Evidence put to the committee both in submissions and by witnesses at hearings strongly favoured amending the bill to ensure that peer and expert review are protected and the Minister’s role and relationship to this process are clearly defined.

Another area of concern is the removal from the Board of the capacity to initiate its own inquiries into research matters, and passing this power to the CEO. Just how this would happen and what powers of approval if any the Minister might have were unclear. It was however felt that the ARC should retain the capacity to conduct research related reviews.

In summary then the Opposition do not support the majority of the changes to the ARC governance provisions.

There is no evidence to support these changes – there is no real confusion between Board and CEO, their roles are clear, so this is no reason for the changes – it is a furphy.

The Minister has no need of any further powers – as proved by the past Minister he intervened frequently under the present rules.

This bill will quite simply enable the Minister of the day to exercise more unfettered power. There is no guarantee that the CEO will really be independent from the Minister. There is no guarantee that the committees will be truly independent. There is no guidance on Ministerial appointments to committees. These are all major deficiencies with this bill.

There is nothing in this bill that will enhance Australian research quality or performance.

Other than the submission from the department, most other submissions to the Senate committee expressed concern that the changes in the bill would put at risk not only the ARC’s independence and accountability but Australia’s international reputation.

We can however just add that to the ever growing list of areas where our reputation under this government is heading downhill fast – our handling if refugees by forcing them off shore, and our own workplace relations which severely disadvantage the workers are but two others.

This is a bad bill as it stands. It needs major amendments if it is not to further erode our international reputation and the morale of our research establishment.

Substantive amendments are needed to retain the Board with oversight and advisory capacities; have the CEO with more powers to establish advisory committees and report decisions direct to the Minister.

The College of Experts should be retained as an independent committee, and the ARC should retain the ability to initiate and conduct enquiries over research matters of interest.