Australian Greens Senators' additional comments

1.1The Australian Greens welcome the opportunity to contribute additional comments to the committee report, and thank the authors of submissions for their time and expertise.

1.2We have long pushed for reforms to end political interference in Australian Research Council (ARC) funding decisions, including through the Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018[1] and highlighting the issue through senate estimates. The work of the Australian Greens and the research community, who have been increasingly concerned about political interference,[2] has led to recommendations of the ARCIndependent Review which are implemented by the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 (the bill).

Concerns over political interference

1.3While this bill is a welcome step to reduce political interference in ARC funding decisions, the bill should be amended to further limit Ministerial discretion, which can lead to political interference.

1.4The Australian Greens are concerned about Ministerial powers to veto research funding for reasons related to ‘international relations’. Stakeholders raised concerns that the Minister’s power to veto funding for reasons of ‘international relations’ could be interpreted broadly and lead to unintended consequences.[3] The ARC Independent Review recommended the Minister have power to veto funding for national security reasons only,[4] but this Bill goes further. The Australian Greens recommend removing ‘international relations’ as a reason for Ministerial veto to reduce the risk of political interference.

1.5Stakeholders also raised concerns about the potential breadth of the Minister’s power to specify in regulations a ‘designated research program’ for which the Minister has sole decision-making power in relation to funding.[5] Narrowing the definition of a ‘designated research program’ in the bill, for example to programs focussed on creating research capability (as noted in the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum)[6], as distinct from an individual research grant, could limit the scope of funding decisions over which the Minister can attain sole decision-making power. The government should narrow the definition of ‘designated research program’.

Recommendation 1

1.6Remove the Minister’s power to veto research funding for reasons related to ‘international relations’, and narrow the definition of ‘designated research program’, to reduce the risk of political interference.

Increased funding and job security

1.7Research funding in Australia is abysmally low[7] compared to other OECD nations, with both Labor and Coalition governments having failed to fund vital research. It is the view of the Australian Greens that the government must significantly increase overall research funding and increase funding to the ARC to ensure that the cost of implementing this bill does not reduce existing research funding. Stakeholders who made submissions to this inquiry argued that the government should significantly increase research funding to a level competitive with other OECD nations,[8] and increase funding to the ARC to ensure the bill can be implemented without reducing existing research funding.[9]

1.8In addition, the objectives of the ARC should be expanded to include ensuring secure research jobs, and this could be supported by making job security a requirement of ARC funding agreements and an element of annual reporting. The National Tertiary Education Union argued that the bill should address job insecurity, including to make ARC grants require that researchers are employed for at least the entire grant period, and that the ARC annually report on the job security of all employed under ARC grants.[10]

Recommendation 2

1.9Significantly increase government funding for research and for the ARC, and improve job security for all researchers including those employed through ARC funding.

Democratic governance

1.10The Australian Greens believe decision making bodies should be democratic and represent interests of the research community. Stakeholders commented that members of the Board[11] or committees[12] proposed by this Bill should be democratically elected by researchers to better represent the interests of researchers.

Recommendation 3

1.11Ensure governance of research funding is democratic and representative.

Senator Mehreen Faruqi

Member

Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens

Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes

[1]See information about the bill: Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018(accessed 5 February 2024).

[2]See the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Report into the Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018, March 2022 (accessed 5February 2024).

[3]Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Submission 8, p. 2; Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Submission 19, p. 1; Joint Learned Academies, Submission21, p. 2.

[4]Recommendation 5 of the Trusting Australia’s Ability: Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001(ARC Review Final Report) (accessed 5 February 2024).

[5]Joint Learned Academies, Submission 21, p. 2; Universities Australia, Submission 9, p. 2; Innovative Research Universities, Submission 22, p. 2; Monash University, Submission 15, p. 2; University of Western Australia, Submission 10, p. 4; La Trobe University, Submission 5, p. 2.

[6]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 27.

[7]See for example, University of Queensland, ‘A Slippery Slope - Basic Research Underfunded in Australia’, April 2023 (accessed 5 February 2024).

[8]Australian Academy of Science, Submission 24, p. 2; Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Submission 19, p. 2; Professor Thea Blackler, Submission 16, p. 1; Science and Technology Australia, Submission 25, p. 2.

[9]Joint Learned Academies, Submission 19, p. 3; Council for Humanities Arts and Social Sciences, Submission 8, p. 1; Regional Universities Network, Submission 18, p. 2; Universities Australia, Submission 9, pp. 2–3; Western Sydney University, Submission 3, pp. 2–3; University of Western Australia, Submission 10, p. 5; La Trobe University, Submission 5, p. 1; University of Canberra, Submission 20, p. 2; University of Sydney, Submission 26, p. 3.

[10]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 17, p. 3.

[11]Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Postgraduate Association, Submission 30, p. 4; Dr Shumi Akhtar, Submission 29, p. 3.

[12]Australian Association of University Professors and Australian Association of von Humboldt Fellows, Submission 11, p. 2.