A bid to stamp out political interference in the allocation of $800 million worth of annual government research funding has been widely welcomed by universities, but they warn the proposed reform legislation could open different avenues for meddling, and no new funding has been added to cover additional the extra responsibilities.
The Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 introduced late last year will make wholesale changes at the ARC, including introducing a board as its accountable authority and removing ministerial approval for individual research grants.
Coalition ministers had wielded the approvals as effective grant vetoes, rejecting otherwise approved funding for several projects, seemingly for ideological reasons and in some instances national security fears.
The veto power is inconsistent with international norms and its last use by then-acting Education minister Stuart Robert triggered widespread backlash.
A landmark review of the ARC completed last year called for the ministerial approvals to be removed, with a new board to be responsible for final approvals after the usual peer review process of grant applications.
The bill to bring in the changes includes this, but ministers will still be able to reject grant funding “for reasons relevant to the security, defence or international relations of Australia”.
The Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) – representing the disciplines targeted by past vetoes – told the current Senate inquiry into the bill that allowing grants to be vetoed for reasons relevant to “international relations” is problematic.
“It is essential to academic freedom and a democratic society that the decisions of funding bodies facilitate critique founded on evidence-based research in HASS disciplines. It is not their role to enhance Australia’s international relations or to act as purveyors of ‘soft power’,” the group’s submission to an inquiry into the bill said.
CHASS wants ‘international relations’ changed to ‘international obligations of Australia’ to avoid “expansive understanding” of the terms by ministers, while several other submissions call for a requirement that universities at least be consulted on possible rejections.
UTS has also flagged concerns with an attempt to maintain some accountability to the Parliament with the ending of ministerial approvals, warning it could act as a handbrake on grant programs.
While the new board will be responsible for approvals and setting the funding rules (grant guidelines), the rules will be subject to disallowance by the Parliament, according to the bill.
In its submission, UTS said this approach could put an undue burden on the Parliament and open new avenues for political interference. In practice, this could slowdown funding schemes and the grants they provide, according to UTS.
“Funding Schemes cannot be released, and applications cannot be made or assessed unless the Funding Rules are approved for each grant funding opportunity,” the UTS submission said.
Several universities and peak bodies also raised concerns that the welcome changes to the ARC are coming without additional funding.
The establishment of a board is expected to cost an additional $600,000 annually while new and improved governance processes will cost an additional 900,000 a year. This will be met from the ARC’s existing budget, according to the bill’s explanatory memorandum.
Several individual universities and peak group Universities Australia urged the government to ensure the ARC has adequate funding for the additional responsibilities. “At a minimum this should include assurances that there will be no further reduction in program funding,” UA said.
The group, representing most of Australia’s universities, also wants a “specific, simple indexation formula” for funding explicitly in the bill after the government committed to indexation last year.
Most of the current submissions to the inquiry have also flagged the need to ensure the new ARC board is diverse, including representing various disciplines, with many stakeholders warning the currently proposed board size of five-to-seven members is unlikely to cover this.
The bill currently says the board will comprise suitably qualified and experienced members and include both a First Nations person and a representative of regional, rural and remote Australia, but nothing on specific research fields or other diversity areas.
“The ARC Board will be an extremely powerful body and it is imperative that the membership of the Board holds sufficient experience and diversity,” the Curtin University submission said.
“The current membership of chair, deputy chair and three to five members, could see a group of five people wield great power in the direction of the ARC and funding for research in Australia.”
Curtin has also recommended the addition of a mechanism that to ensure that support for fundamental research is not diminished.
While ministers will soon be removed from grant approvals, they will still specify the overarching research programs and could be tempted to favour ones with more immediate results.
“While ministers may understandably favour research that has immediate practical application for the benefit of the Australian public, we urge the ARC to have a mechanism in place to ensure that support for fundamental research is not diminished,” the Curtin submission said.
“Fundamental, or investigator-initiated, research helps elevate human understanding of the world around us, and is critical in laying the foundation for all subsequent research.”
