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

by leave—I move together the Opposition amendments standing in my name on sheet 4979:

(2)   Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 11), after item 12, insert:

12A  Subsection 42(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    The plan must be in writing and must not be given to the Minister unless it has been approved by the Board.

(4)   Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3  At the end of section 50

Add:

        (5)    The Minister must ask for and consider the advice of the Board before making a determination.

(5)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

4  After subsection 51(3)

Insert:

     (3A)    The Minister must cause a copy of the determination under paragraph (2)(b) to be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 1 October for the year.

(6)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

5  After subsection 52(2)

Insert:

     (2A)    A recommendation must not be made unless it has been subject to peer or expert review by the ARC.

(7)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6  At the end of section 52

Add:

        (5)    Where the Minister does not approve a proposal or makes any changes to a proposal, the Minister must table in each House of the Parliament:

             (a)    the specific area and topic of the proposal; and

             (b)    a statement of reasons for not approving or for amending the proposal.

(8)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

7  At the end of section 52

Add:

        (6)    Material tabled under subsection (5) must not breach the privacy of any person who has submitted the proposal.

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, items 1 to 12, TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 1, items 13, 14, 19, 23 to 37, 39 to 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, TO BE OPPOSED.

Speaking briefly to our amendments, the amendments are moved to protect the integrity of the ARC and its peer review processes from meddling ministers. The amendments seek to retain the board of the ARC as an important safeguard against politicisation by this government. They enshrine peer and expert review as the main mechanisms used to determine research funding recommendations to the minister. In my speech on the second reading I outlined the importance of the fact that the minister’s unfettered power to change or abolish peer review could damage Australia’s research reputation. The amendments reject the government’s attempt to make the CEO completely vulnerable to ministerial interference. We would do this by first making sure that the CEO is appointed responsibly and is not directly answerable to the minister.

The amendments also move to reject the government’s attempt to appoint the ARC’s committees directly. The Department of Education, Science and Training tried to tell the Senate committee inquiring into this bill that there was no change to the minister’s powers. They said:

I think the first thing to point out is that the amendments actually maintain the minister’s decision-making role in appointments to designated committees and in the grant approval processes. The legislation does not enhance or diminish that; it maintains it.

That is simply not true. The bill before us and the act as it stands today are substantially different. Even the ARC concurred at the recent Senate estimates hearings that this bill is a radical departure from existing arrangements. A sensible role for the minister to play under the current act is to outline priorities and expectations for statutory bodies and lay out clear guidelines to meet those priorities. Meddling with the internal management of the ARC, its staff and its committees is not good governance.

The amendments propose a 1 October deadline by which the minister must table approved grants in every calendar year. That would provide much-needed planning security for universities and job security for many academics who rely on grant funding for employment. Finally, the amendments give the CEO enhanced responsibilities. It should be the CEO’s operational responsibility to develop and present the organisation’s strategic plan to the minister. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

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

The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Labor amendments. I just want to clarify that Senator Stephens was addressing amendments (1) to (3) only?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 4979.

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

I am just clarifying that Senator Stephens was addressing only those amendments.

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

I was covering them all.

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

That is what I thought. In that case, I will also cover the lot now in relation to the Democrat position on the Labor amendments.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are most welcome to do so.

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

Thank you. In relation to retaining the board, obviously Labor’s amendments simply oppose the provisions in the bill that deal with the abolition of the board. We have some sympathy for that position, so we will be supporting the amendments. In relation to no designated committees, I see that the Labor approach is again to simply oppose the provisions that deal with the designated committees. That is fine. On the peer review process, as I have discussed with the Labor opposition, there is no specific reference in the Labor amendments to the college of experts, and obviously that is a difference that you can see between the Democrat amendments that I will move shortly and the Labor amendments. I understand that Labor is keen to preserve the peer review process by retaining the board, and also through the amendment that they are dealing with after subsection 52(4). We will accept that.

In terms of initiating inquiries, we have a slightly different approach, but we are trying to come to the same end. I note from the running sheet that we are not in direct opposition and that it does not seem to be conflicting, so I think we are more than happy to support Labor and see what happens. The approach of the Labor Party is to repeal the part of the bill that stripped the ARC’s previous power to initiate inquiries, and it is happy to retain the act’s provisions on this.

Senator Stephens and others who have been involved in this process would note that the Democrats have found it somewhat confusing, or a little unsatisfactory, that in both the Senate committee process and through the estimates committee process I was unable to get a definitive response from the government and the department—for partly understandable reasons, I might add—as to whether or not the ARC retained the power to initiate its own inquiries, but specifically whether or not the CEO could initiate those inquiries without reference to, approval from or consultation with the minister. I am sure that the advisers are more than aware of the questions that I asked and the answers that I received on two occasions on that issue.

Before anyone advises me about the Public Service Act and the provisions in it, I am well aware of those provisions. However, there was still some element of uncertainty as to whether or not the CEO required permission from the minister. I note that in the case of the Labor Party amendments, the Labor Party has said that the board does not actually have to get the approval of the minister before initiating inquiries but merely consult the minister. We think this is an appropriate way for any statutory agency to operate—keep the minister informed and seek advice where relevant. So there is not a problem, as I understand it, with these Labor Party amendments in terms of the act as it currently stands.

However, the Labor Party and others would be aware of concerns that have been expressed by organisations which provided input into the Senate committee process. On that note, because I have incorporated my speech on the second reading, I do want to make a very clear point, given that committee processes seem to be a matter of debate at the moment. It is my understanding—and I am happy to be corrected if it is wrong—that the chair’s report into this legislation did not even refer to the criticisms that were brought up by sector groups. The government needs to understand just how offensive and insulting that was. That was certainly how it was perceived by groups that have a vested interest in their communities and their sectors but do not necessarily have a partisan perspective. They went to a lot of trouble to provide written submissions and verbal submissions, to answer questions and to turn up to hearings, and then they were not even cited in the chair’s report. That is a bit much! I know the government is aware of those criticisms, even if it did not refer to them in the majority report.

The federation, or FASTS, said that the current act unnecessarily diminishes the power of the board to initiate inquiries by requiring it to consult the minister. So, even though the Labor Party’s amendment is borne out of a dissatisfaction with the current wording of the act, and that is what it seeks to do with this amendment, the Democrats still have concerns that in fact that is not really good enough either. I have not been satisfied with the responses to the questions I have asked during a number of processes, and clearly organisations such as FASTS are also not happy. So our amendment, which I foreshadow, gives the CEO the ability to initiate inquiries without seeking ministerial approval, thus helping the ARC to fulfil its statutory requirements in providing high-level advice to the minister.

Essentially, we are supporting the Labor Party amendments. I think they are supporting our amendments too. We are trying to get to the same thing—trying to alleviate what we consider to be some of the worst aspects of this legislation and improve it in some very key ways to do with the College of Experts, the peer review process, the powers of the board and the role of the CEO. And I might put on the record once again my strong concern and that of my party about making sure that the CEO’s ability to initiate an inquiry remains. I can speak to our amendments in more detail or maybe more quickly when they are moved, but in the meantime the Democrats give our support to the opposition amendments.

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

The government will not be supporting the amendments moved by the Labor Party. I take it that the comments made by Senator Stott Despoja were statements rather than questions, so I will not directly respond to those—and, having listened to the comments that she made, I would say that essentially I would be giving her the same answers that she has received before. Whether she was satisfied with them or not at that stage, I suspect that she would get the same response now. So I will just indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments.

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

Sorry, Chairman. I was talking committee business with the chair. I just want to clarify that the parliamentary secretary was saying to me, through you, that there was not necessarily a different answer from the government on the queries that I had. I did note that at the last estimates committee hearings the department undertook very generously to examine this issue once again—and I think there is no change to that perspective. I am sorry, Senator, if I have got that wrong, but I just wanted to give you an opportunity to repeat that so I can make sure that is the case.

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

Senator, no need to repeat it; you have proved once again that ladies can do two things at once.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are dealing first with the items in schedule 1 which Senator Stephens indicated that the opposition opposes.

Question put:

That schedule 1 items 1 to 14, 19, 23 to 37, 39 to 41, 44, 45, 47 and 48 stand as printed.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that opposition amendment (2) and amendments (4) to (8) on sheet 4979 moved by Senator Stephens be agreed to.

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

I move Democrat amendment (2) on sheet 4937:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 11), after paragraph 33B(c), insert:

           (ca)    to initiate inquiries on his or her own volition for the purpose of fulfilling the ARC’s statutory functions;

The Democrats intend to call a division on this amendment because, as previously indicated, it is pivotal. The amendment clarifies that the CEO of the Australian Research Council can actually initiate inquiries without being required to seek permission from or consult with the minister of the day. Because the Labor amendment has gone down and because the current act’s provision in relation to initiating own inquiries has not been successful, we seek to put in this amendment to make it absolutely clear that the CEO has that responsibility and that power in order for the CEO to fill the statutory responsibilities of the ARC, and that is to initiate their own inquiries.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Stott Despoja’s) be agreed to.

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

I move Australian Democrats amendment (1) on sheet 4937:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 16), after Part 2, insert:

Part 3—The College of Experts

7  Establishment of the College of Experts

                 The ARC College of Experts is established by this section.

8  Functions of the College of Experts

                 The functions of the ARC College of Experts are to:

             (a)    assess and rank ARC grant applications submitted under the National Competitive Grants Program according to research excellence;

             (b)    make funding recommendations to the ARC CEO;

             (c)    provide strategic advice to the ARC on emerging and cross-disciplinary developments.

9  Membership and appointment of the College of Experts

        (1)    The College of Experts is to consist of not less than 75 members.

        (2)    The ARC must appoint members with demonstrated expertise in their field that are experts of international standing drawn from:

             (a)    the Australian research community; and

             (b)    the higher education sector; and

             (c)    the industry and public sector research organisations.

10  Terms and conditions of appointment of members of the College of Experts

        (1)    A member of the College of Experts is appointed for a period of three years.

        (2)    A member of the College of Experts may resign by giving the CEO a written resignation.

        (3)    The Minister may only terminate the appointment of a member of the College of Experts following an independent inquiry on the ground of misbehaviour or of physical or mental incapacity.

        (4)    For the purposes of subsection (3), misbehaviour includes but is not limited to academic fraud, conflict of interest, bribery or corruption, bankruptcy, excessive absence from duty or being convicted in Australia of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or longer.

The amendment relates to the issue of the College of Experts. It deals with establishing the College of Experts, the functions of the College of Experts, the membership of and appointment to the College of Experts, and the terms and conditions of appointment of members of the College of Experts. The idea behind this amendment is to ensure that the College of Experts is enshrined in legislation. The Democrats believe that the college is integral to the ARC’s peer review process, but it is not currently recognised. I note that in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, in the committee process and in other environments the government has stated that it is committed to the College of Experts and that it will be retained, but that is not evident in the legislation. Thus, the Democrats seek to enshrine that. The amendment will ensure that the College of Experts is in the legislation in its own right.

In relation to the functions, the amendment deals with the functions of the college to ensure that they cannot be changed to suit and that its critical role in the peer review process is not threatened. It makes clear the function and the existence of the College of Experts so that they cannot be changed. The amendment ensures that the College of Experts is not exposed to the same degree of ministerial intervention as the designated committees, so the minister is not responsible for determining the functions.

In relation to membership and appointment, the amendment stipulates a minimum number of members, thus guaranteeing that a diversity of interests is represented. In addition, it guarantees that the membership of the College of Experts is drawn from a wide range of experts of international standing in order to ensure that informed decisions are made about grants and that they are made across all research areas. The amendment stipulates that the members are appointed by the ARC and not by the minister. That is fundamental, ensuring the minister cannot be accused of making political appointments to the college. We actually think that is pretty good protection for the minister.

This provision will contribute to the maintenance of the college, its independence and thus, we presume, the confidence of the research sector and the public in grants decisions. The terms and conditions of appointment are stipulated, regulating the terms and conditions under which the members of the experts’ college are appointed, regulating the time frame of appointments and the conditions under which a member can resign. It also clarifies the conditions under which a minister can terminate a member’s appointment, ensuring transparency and accountability in that situation and providing guidelines for what is defined as ‘misbehaviour’.

We feel strongly about these amendments, but we will not divide on them. I want to reiterate that this bill has been subject to a degree of scrutiny and discussion by a number of people, but I have to say that it has been of particular interest to the Australian Democrats. I did not anticipate that it would be dealt with in this fashion at this time of night in a way that is almost cursory. Just because I have tried to facilitate the Senate’s business tonight, it does not mean that this bill is any less important for the Australian Democrats.

I commend Democrat amendment (1) and hope that it will receive the support of the chamber. If people want to indicate how they will vote, that will be sufficient for me. If opposition parties, including Family First, want to put on record how they will vote, that would be appreciated and I will not call a division.

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

Labor finds the prescriptive nature of the amendment relating to the College of Experts a bit difficult. We do not believe that the parliament should be setting up such a specific formula for peer review. The government and the parliament should set out clear guidelines for what we want the ARC to achieve and make sure that those objectives are achieved. The mechanics of how those processes are achieved—for instance, the mechanics of peer review and international best practice change—are really up to the body with the expertise, and that is not the parliament. We should not be limiting the ARC’s ability to change to update its processes. But we are supporting the amendment, because we believe that some sort of protection would be better than nothing.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.