Researchers call for university funding veto power to be axed
Federal ministers should not have the power to veto research grants, a Senate committee has heard, since the practice is out of step with other scientifically advanced nations and undermines a core pillar of how liberal democracies work.
Speaking to the senate committee on proposed changes to the Australian Research Council, Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt said the whim of ministers to block research grants was at odds with international research practices.
“The reason we have independence in Western democracies is that it allows us to solve problems that are not focused on today, but on the future,” said Professor Schmidt, who is vice-chancellor of Australian National University.
“And so when we start colouring our basic research into what is already known, we are unable to actually address the issues that are [on the other side] of the horizon.”
The Senate committee is examining whether the right of federal ministers to veto grants should be repealed, after an intervention by acting education minister Stuart Robert resulted in six research projects – which had been approved for funding by a college of experts – being blocked.
Although he approved 587 Australian Research Grants for funding under the Discovery program, Mr Robert rejected six of them on the grounds they did not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money.
The vetoing of grants has only happened twice before, in 2005 and 2017. Both decisions were made by a Coalition government in the lead-up to an election.
The six grants rejected last year included two on understanding modern-day China, two exploring early English literature, one on the connection of religion to science fiction and fantasy novels, and one which sought to understand the mass mobilisation of school students on climate change protests and what that meant for their participation in democracy.
James McCluskey, deputy vice-chancellor at Melbourne University, told the committee there was no rational explanation for the rejection of the grants.
“It can be bitterly demoralising and utterly bewildering when a grant recommended for funding by the college of experts is rejected, apparently on the basis of a 150-word, national interest test. This is what we disagree with,” Professor McCluskey said.
He said it was a “significant departure from world’s-best practice, where government should set strategy, while the civil service and the funding agencies should operationalise it”.
In her opening statement to the committee, Catriona Jackson, chief executive of the peak industry body Universities Australia, said the Australian research system needed “strong governance, robust peer review and genuine transparency at its core”.
She also called for the ministerial veto power to be removed.
‘Advancing a political agenda’
The Senate committee is looking at a private member’s bill Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi unsuccessfully introduced in 2017, after 11 grants were vetoed by then-education minister Simon Birmingham.
Australia’s predilection for vetoing research grants has been widely condemned both in Australia and overseas.
Labor senator Kim Carr called Mr Roberts’ vetoes a “crude politicisation of the research program” in January, claiming “it is quite clear that this is to advance a political agenda”.
Labor MP and former economics professor Andrew Leigh said the vetoes were “not just damaging to the six grants that are knocked off” but also a hit to academics’ “willingness to participate in the entire research review process”.
A petition on the Australian Parliament House website calling for changes to the research grants process had 2730 signatures on Wednesday afternoon.
It called for legislative change to “ensure the independence of the [Australian Research Council] and prevent political interference in research grants”, require all members of the council’s expert college to have “senior research expertise”, and “end the Minister’s use of the national interest test to make unilateral decision on individual projects”.
It said this was necessary to “maintain the rigour and integrity of the ARC’s grant assessment process”.
The petition also called for the council to be required to “make timely public announcements of grant outcomes within 21 days after scheme determination”.
The demand follows a prolonged approval process which meant that last year’s Australian Research Council grant announcement was the latest it had been in 30 years, with academics warning their careers were on hold as they waited for funding confirmation.
Subscribe to gift this article
Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.
Subscribe nowAlready a subscriber?
Introducing your Newsfeed
Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.
Find out moreRead More
Latest In Health & education
Fetching latest articles