Senate debates
Monday, 18 March 2024
Bills
Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023; In Committee
6:50 pm
Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The committee is considering the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill of 2023. There is a question in front of the chamber, but I note that it is after 6.30 pm, so any divisions required will be held on Wednesday, due to special business of the Senate tomorrow. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Senators may wish now to participate in the committee process or move amendments.
6:51 pm
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2468 revised together.
The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing
This amendment requires ARC grant recipient organisations to report to the ARC on the nature of the employment of researchers who are employed under the grant at the end of the grant period. This amendment also requires the ARC to annually report on the nature of the employment of researchers who are employed by the organisations who are conducting research with ARC grants.
Job insecurity and casualisation are, as we know, rampant in universities—and the research sector is not immune. We know that one-third of researchers have been on rolling fixed term contracts for over six years. We can only address job insecurity if there is transparency about the nature of the employment of researchers so that we know the full extent of the problem.
It should not be a big ask for ARC grant recipient organisations to report information about their employed researchers, such as whether their contracts are fixed term or ongoing, the duration of contracts, the gender and seniority of employees, whether employees are casually employed or whether they are part-time or full-time. They should already have this information, so it's not going to put an extra burden on them.
As one of the biggest funders of research, the ARC must play a role in increasing transparency regarding the job security of researchers. This amendment will ensure that this happens in ARC funded research.
I want to thank the National Tertiary Education Union as well as the networks of casualised employees at universities for the work that they have done towards achieving job security, getting rid of casualisation and improving transparency in university employment. I also want to thank the government for their engagement on this amendment and for supporting it.
6:54 pm
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government will be supporting this amendment. We see our research community flourish, and part of that is improving the attractiveness of academic research roles. The reporting requirements in Senator Faruqi's amendment will help underline that, so it is something the government will support.
Question agreed to.
6:55 pm
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 2402 together:
(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (after line 12), after subsection 59(2), insert:
(2A) If the Minister makes such a request, the Minister must prepare a written statement setting out:
(a) the Minister's specific concerns with the rules that the Board gave to the Minister for approval; and
(b) details of the changes to the rules, if any, that the Minister requested.
(2B) The statement must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the rules to which the statement relates.
Note: As approved rules are a legislative instrument, they are tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003.
(2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (after line 26), after subsection 60(3), insert:
(3A) If the Minister makes such a request, the Minister must prepare a written statement setting out:
(a) the Minister's specific concerns with the proposed variation that the Board gave to the Minister for approval; and
(b) details of the changes to the proposed variation, if any, that the Minister requested.
(3B) The statement must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the variation to which the statement relates.
Note: As approved variations are a legislative instrument, they are tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003.
(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 40 (before line 18), before paragraph 65A(d), insert:
(cb) include copies of any written statements prepared under subsections 59(2A) and 60(3A) in that period; and
These amendments require the minister to table a statement of their specific concerns in any requested changes to ARC funding rules that are prepared by the board. This amendment also requires the ARC to include copies of these statements in its annual reports as well. The bill provides that the board prepares the funding rules for ARC grants and that the ARC board must comply with any written request from the minister to provide revised rules to take account of the minister's specific concerns.
This amendment really is a very basic transparency measure that is not currently in place to make sure that the minister's written request for revisions and funding rules is made public. Again, this is quite a basic, bare minimum expectation. Especially given the history of political interference in ARC funding decisions, the research community and the public deserve to know what revisions are that ministers are directing to ARC funding rules. This amendment would allow public scrutiny, allow public oversight, and would hopefully deter any ministerial interference that could occur in the setting of ARC funding rules.
6:56 pm
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill introduces a very high level of transparency around the operation of the ARC and funding programs, including provisions which make the funding rules themselves a disallowable instrument, subject to the scrutiny of parliament. It is appropriate that in formulating these funding rules the minister of the day be able to work with the board at the drafting stage to give and receive full and frank advice. The resulting guidelines may then be considered by the parliament in the context of a disallowance examination.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the committee is that the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required and will occur Wednesday.
6:57 pm
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2396:
(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (line 16), at the end of subsection 59(3), add ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the rules".
(2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (line 31), at the end of subsection 60(4), add ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the variation".
The current situation for ARC funding rules, also known as grant guidelines, is that they are tabled in parliament but are not disallowable. The Parliamentary Library informs me this has been the situation since at least 2006 and perhaps even earlier. The government's bill seeks to change that to make funding rules disallowable. Many researchers and universities have raised significant concerns with me that this introduces a new form of political interference which has not been seen in the past and risks significant delays to the commencement of entire research teams.
The ARC review which this government is implementing with this legislation did not make any recommendations to make funding rules disallowable. In fact, the final report did not even mention the word 'disallowable' once. My amendment would retain the current situation by making funding rules should be tabled in parliament, allowing for public scrutiny, while avoiding delays of the disallowance processes for researchers waiting for their grant applications.
6:59 pm
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government will not be supporting this amendment. Making funding rules disallowable is a key transparency mechanism in this bill. It ensures that funding rules are subject to the scrutiny of the parliament. The ARC board will prepare funding rules which will be issued in a manner which takes into account the disallowance processes and time frames so that researchers have certainty as a result.
Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question before the committee is that the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required and will occur on Wednesday.
7:00 pm
David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2413:
(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 7 (line 7), omit "up to 5", substitute "up to 7".
(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 8 (line 21), omit paragraph 11(c), substitute:
(c) not fewer than 5, and not more than 7, other members.
(3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 15 (lines 25 to 29), omit subsections 30(1) and (1A), substitute:
(1) The Minister may establish committees to assist the Board to determine priorities, strategies and policies for the ARC.
(4) Schedule 2, item 19, page 17 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute:
19 Section 33C
Repeal the section, substitute:
33C CEO to attend meetings and provide advice or assistance
(1) The CEO is to attend each meeting of the Board.
(2) The CEO:
(a) may provide any reasonable advice or assistance requested by the Chair for the purposes of the performance of the Board's functions; but
(b) must not take part in any decision of the Board under the following:
(i) subsection 34(2);
(ii) subsection 34(3);
(iii) subsection 34(4);
(iv) subsection 38(1);
(v) subsection 38(2);
(vi) section 40A;
(vii) subsection 40B(1).
Professor Mary O'Kane AC and her team have done great work as part of the Universities Accord process. I thank and commend her for it. The final report released on the weekend contains 47 recommendations that together have the capacity to transform tertiary education in Australia. I urge the government to accept them all and to implement them as a matter of urgency—in particular the measures relating to student safety, debt and income support. In a cost-of-living crisis these measures are urgently needed. Earlier today I met with the Australian Medical Students Association, and they relayed just how important it is that we provide support to students through placements and through their university years so they can actually serve our communities in all of these roles that we talk so much about desperately needing.
Canberra is a university town and a research powerhouse, and I want to see that flourish. Earlier we heard some debate about research investment and funding, and we heard the coalition try to blame Labor for this going backwards. But the fact remains that R&D funding as a percentage of GDP has been falling for 14 years in Australia. For 14 years it has been on a downward trajectory. Clearly this is something that needs to be turned around and turned around quickly. Just to quote a few things from the accord:
While Australian universities invest significantly in research, national R&D expenditure overall is low for an advanced economy and our rankings on innovation indices are poor. Securing Australia's high-quality research bedrock will require significant growth of Australia's R&D system. This growth cannot be achieved without a significant increase in Australia's expenditure on R&D as a proportion of GDP.
The ARC is clearly a critical part of Australia's research ecosystem, and this bill will significantly strengthen and safeguard that role. It gives effect to the terrific work led by Professor Margaret Sheil AO, and, critically, it takes away a power too often misused for the minister to intervene and stop research grants for purely politically ideological grounds. We've seen this happen in the past, and this political interference erodes trust and has no place in the kind of future we want to build in this country. We have to make sure that it can't happen again, and that's why I look forward to supporting this bill.
I'd like to thank Minister Clare's office for their engagement with me the over the amendments I'm seeking to this bill. The amendments I moved on sheet 2413 increase the number of board members and clarify the CEO's role as part of the board. I'll leave it there for now.
7:04 pm
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thanks, Senator Pocock, for your constructive engagement on this bill. The government will support Senator Pocock's amendments concerning increasing the size of the board. They address a suggestion from the Senate committee inquiry and stakeholder feedback. A modest increase to the size of the board will allow for even more diversity and sector representation whilst maintaining a size conducive to good governance.
The government is unable to support the balance of the amendments, which would amend elements of the bill drawn from the independent report. In that context, I would ask that (1) and (2) be put separately from (3) and (4) please.
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Greens will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendments. In fact, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2413, which increase the board size from five-to-seven members to seven-to-nine members, are actually the same amendments as the Greens ones on sheet 2440, which I won't be moving today.
James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question before the chair, and it will be split, is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2413 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The second question is that amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 2413 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
7:06 pm
David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I ask that you please note my support for the amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Your support for the amendments is noted.
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I ask that you note the Greens support as well.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Faruqi, it will be noted that the Greens did support amendments (3) and (4), but they are negated.
David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to withdraw my amendments on sheets 2423 and 2424.
Leave granted.
by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2476.
The amendment s w ere unavailable at the time of publishing.
7:07 pm
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government will support these amendments. I thank Senator Pocock again for his engagement, and I also note the engagement by the Greens in the additional comments to the Senate committee report.
It is important that the minister be able to specify projects as designated research programs to help build Australia's research capability, but it is also important that the power be protected as much as possible from potential misuse in the future. The revised definition proposed by Senator Pocock adds to the existing protections requiring that the relevant program be nationally significant and requiring that the minister of the day be satisfied that the program will help build research capability.
7:08 pm
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said earlier in my second reading contribution, this bill gives the minister power to specify designated research programs in regulations, under which funding for individual research projects is decided solely by the minister and not by the ARC board. This risks the minister taking sole decision-making power over a wide range of funding decisions on individual grants. These concerns have been raised with me by many in the research community, and that's why the Greens did move an amendment that an act of parliament should be required for the minister to take the significant steps of obtaining sole decision-making power over research funding. Nevertheless, that amendment did not get up. This amendment is a minor improvement on the bill because it provides slightly more clarity to the meaning of designated research programs, and the Greens will not stand in the way of this amendment.
Question agreed to.
7:09 pm
David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2474.
The amendment s w ere unavailable at the time of publishing.
These give effect to Science and Technology Australia's very meritorious recommendation to impose time limits requiring the research funding agency to notify successful applicants within 21 days of grant approval.
Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The government will be supporting these amendments.
7:10 pm
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As far as I understand, these amendments require the board to notify organisations of any variations to the ARC funding agreements, which really only improves communications to grant recipients, so the Greens will support these amendments.
Question agreed to.
James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We've considered all the amendments on this bill. Because divisions have been called on two occasions, the bill cannot proceed until those votes are taken. I now shall report to the Senate.
Progress reported.
Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting.