Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to 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.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Crossin’s speech on the second reading debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006.

Leave granted.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To provide the quadrella of incorporations, I thank senators for their contributions to the debate and seek leave to incorporate my speech to conclude the second reading debate.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to conclude the second reading debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 and to thank the Senators for their contributions.

The Bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to implement changes to the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) governance arrangements in response to the Government’s endorsement of the recommendations of the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders by John Uhrig.

The assessment of the ARC against the recommendations of the Uhrig Review found that the functions of the .ARC are best suited to the executive management template. The Bill will enhance the ARC’s governance arrangements to make it fully consistent with this template. This includes retiring the ARC Board and transferring the majority of the Board’s functions and responsibilities to the Chief Executive Officer of the ARC.

The Bill allows for the creation of, and appointments to, designated committees which will provide advice to the Chief Executive Officer.

The Chief Executive Officer will receive input on research matters directly from an Advisory Committee, which will be created as a designated committee under the amended provisions of the Act. As the Minister indicated in her second reading speech in the House, the Advisory Committee will not look at individual grant applications. It will focus on providing strategic advice on matters related to research and the operations of the ARC.

As is the case under the current ARC Act, the Minister for Education, Science and Training will continue to be responsible for approving or not approving recommendations for research funding. The College of Experts will be maintained as a designated committee, as it currently is. It will continue to play a key role in the ARC’s peer review processes, particularly through the consideration of applications for funding under the Discovery-Projects programme.

The Minister has stated publicly that she wants to be able to have faith in the independence and the integrity of the ARC’s peer review processes. The Australian National Audit Office report on the ARC’s management of research grants, released in May, stated that the ARC has a substantial peer-review process in place, with a strong focus on research merit and national benefit, enabling the ARC to select and fund high calibre research.

The College of Experts will make funding recommendations to the Chief Executive Officer, who will in turn provide the Minister with advice. This will expedite the ARC’s funding processes, provide greater certainty to researchers about the future of their ARC funding and allow the ARC to respond quickly and flexibly to emerging priorities.

The changes to the ARC indicates that the outcomes of the recommendations of the Uhrig Review are being effectively implemented by Government, ensuring clear lines of accountability from the Minister down to the agency and implementing better corporate governance in the public sector.

As announced in the 2004 $5.3 billion package, Backing Australia ‘s Ability. Building our Future through Science and Innovation, the Australian Government signalled its ongoing commitment to the role of the ARC in the national innovation system by continuing to maintain the doubling of its programme funding that was announced in 2001.

Under the package the Government committed an additional $1.5 billion over five years for the ARC to 2010-2011. This commitment reflects the value and importance to the Australian Government of funding high quality research and maintaining the integrity of the ARC.

I commend the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.