Senator Mehreen Faruqi

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Senator Mehreen Faruqi

Responses

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

I write this submission as the Australian Greens Education portfolio-holder, and as a former academic. Since being responsible for the Education portfolio for the Australian Greens within the federal parliament from 2018, I have maintained a strong interest in the work of the Australian Research Council (ARC).

A Review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (the Act) is long overdue. My 2018 bill to amend the Act to remove the minister’s power to veto grants at their discretion was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for Inquiry this year. The Committee recommended the Government commission an independent review of the ARC, including its governance and research funding processes. It is good to see the Government undertaking this Review.

The past few years have been particularly troubled for the ARC. Increasing political interference has damaged its integrity and independence. Trust of the ARC amongst the research community has diminished, due to acts of political interference, such as the vetoing of grants and the introduction of the National Interest Test, as well as the rejection of grant applications due to their citation of pre-print publications.[Footnote 1]

To improve the Act, and the operation of the ARC more generally, I make the following recommendations:
1. The Act should be amended to remove the ministerial veto power.
2. The National Interest Test (NIT) should be abolished.
3. The Haldane principle should be enshrined in the Act.
4. The governance of the ARC should be led by researchers.
5. Application processes for competitive grants should be fair, reasonable and subject to clear timeframes. The Act should be amended to include requirements for reasonable timeframes and procedural fairness.
6. The Government should substantially increase the overall funding for the ARC.
7. The importance of fundamental research should be enshrined.

More detail on each of these recommendations is below:
1. Remove the ministerial veto power
The ARC should be free of political interference and the Act should be amended to remove the ministerial veto power, which allows the Education Minister to veto a research grant for any reason, without any obligation to explain their decision. Since the ARC was established in 2001, the ministerial veto has been used on multiple occasions, and escalated in use over the past five years. [Footnote 2]

Vetoes in 2017 and 2018 impacted 11 projects worth more than $4 million. Most recently, in late December 2021, then acting Education Minister Stuart Robert MP vetoed six ARC Discovery grants worth $1.4 million. The decision rightly triggered widespread outrage from university leaders and academics. Two members of the ARC’s College of Experts resigned in protest.

In 2018, I introduced a bill to remove the ministerial veto. My bill also made amendments to the Act to require that the funding determined by the Minister be no less than the amount recommended by the CEO of the ARC.
The bill was referred to a Senate Inquiry earlier this year, and of the more than 80 submissions received in response to the Inquiry, the overwhelming and clear majority (more than 85 per cent) supported removing the ministerial veto. Key concerns regarding the ministerial veto power include the damaging impact on researchers and academic freedom, the chilling impact on the research community leading to censorship, a disproportionate impact on First Nations researchers, lack of transparency, threat to the integrity of a rigorous peer review process, and Australia's international reputation.

The veto should be completely removed. The Act should also clarify that the role of Government is limited to setting overarching strategy and funding amounts. Ministers should not decide which individual projects should be funded nor which researchers should receive the money.

2. Abolish the National Interest Test
The National Interest Test (NIT) was introduced in 2018 by the previous Coalition government, who said it would “improve the public’s confidence” in why grants are awarded [Footnote 3].

In December 2021, then Acting Education Minister Stuart Robert MP, sent a Letter of Expectations to the then CEO of the ARC Professor Sue Thomas issuing a series of demands including that the ARC direct much more funding towards national manufacturing priorities and that there be greater prioritisation of the NIT in determining funding recommendations, including by involving industry representatives and other end-users in the grant review process. These demands, and the existence of the NIT itself, are extraordinarily heavy-handed instruments of executive interference.

In September 2022, in response to my Senate order for production of documents, the Government revealed that the ARC CEO requested revisions to the NIT statement in 322 applications for the programs covered by my Senate Order. Multiple sets of revisions were requested by the CEO for nearly two-thirds (61.5%) of applications where revisions to the NIT statement were requested. Thirty-seven percent of applications to the Discovery Indigenous 2023 scheme attracted a request for NIT revisions, nearly three times the average rate of “NIT-picking” for applications that had progressed to the CEO.

Importantly, there is no need for the NIT. It is unnecessary and onerous. The ARC already requires researchers to demonstrate the national benefits and impacts of their research.

The Consultation Paper prepared by the ARC Review Panel notes that the ultimate purpose of the NIT “is to entrench and enhance the social licence to provide public funding for research through the ARC” [Footnote 4]. But there is little evidence that the social licence for public funding of research is under threat.

It may be that such a narrative was perpetuated by the former Coalition government, which had an ideological opposition to academic research, particularly in relation to the humanities and pure research. This narrative seems to be an attempt to justify the previous government’s crackdown on research funding and academic freedom by abusing the ministerial veto power and introducing inappropriate measures like the NIT.

If anything, the Government should be embracing the reality that the social licence for research is likely greater than ever in the wake of the remarkable success of the global research community in rapidly developing a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. It is also likely to be greater because of a general acceptance of the need for a clean energy transition and new related technologies.

But even in the absence of these current events, academics and researchers are generally a highly regarded profession, in Australia [Footnote 5] as well as globally [Footnote 6]. So, whilst the public funding of research must of course be subject to quality, transparency and accountability measures, we should recognise that overall, the social licence for the public funding of research itself remains robust.

To preserve this social licence, the current Government ought to take the exact opposite approach that the previous government took and abolish the NIT. The recently announced revisions to the NIT reflect progress, but are not the solution.

3. Enshrine the Haldane Principle
In addition to removing the ministerial veto and the NIT, the Act should be amended to enshrine the ‘Haldane principle’. The Haldane principle is the principle that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken following an evaluation of the quality and likely impact of the proposals (such as a peer review process). Enshrined in British Government Policy since 1918, the Haldane Principle has also been adopted into research policy in the United States and many countries across Europe.

A good way forward would be to follow the UK approach [Footnote 7], and make it clear in the legislation that decisions about which individual projects should be funded are to be made by researchers through peer review without any political interference. The critical importance of peer review to research excellence, which is currently not mentioned in the Act, should be stated.

4. Governance should be led by researchers
If an ARC Board, or similar body, is established, its membership must be predominantly composed of a diverse range of academics and members of the research community. Corporate and political appointments should be minimised. There should be representation from First Nations academics and academics of colour on the Board.

The Board’s functions should include making recommendations for the appointment of the ARC CEO and appointing the College of Experts. The CEO should be required to have a strong track record and experience in university research. Only researchers should be eligible to be appointed to the College of Experts.

The Act should clearly set out the membership requirements and functions of the Board as well as the need for the CEO and College of Experts to have the requisite expertise and experience.

5. Improve the application processes
It is no secret that Australian academics routinely spend months preparing long, complex and detailed applications for grant programs in which the success rate is as low as 5 per cent. The ARC Review Panel should closely review application processes to ensure applicants do not have to spend unreasonable amounts of time preparing lengthy applications.

Applicants also need greater certainty. While they face strict timeframes to complete applications, they often don’t know when the outcomes of the applications will be determined. Delays in decision making have serious impacts on maintaining a research community which is reliant on a grant system. Delays also have a major impact on individual researchers and their personal lives. As made clear in a 2021 pre-budget submission signed by 1007 researchers [Footnote 8], clarity on timelines is necessary to plan a range of activities related to research including declining alternative research directions and focusing staff on specific tasks.

When announcing the present Review on 30 August 2022, the Minister committed to ensuring “all future grant rounds are delivered on time, to a predetermined time frame.” The ARC has already responded to this call by publishing its grants calendar for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year. These are promising developments.

In order to maximise certainty for researchers, the Act itself should stipulate standards for reasonable timeframes for decision-making on ARC scheme application rounds. The Act should also contain general obligations for consultation, prioritisation of information and to afford procedural fairness when it comes to making changes to grant rules and deadlines as well as when considering individual requests for leniency and deadline extensions.

6. Increase overall funding
It is impossible for Australian research to reach its full potential without addressing the question of funding sufficiency. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the terms of the Review do not extend to funding.

The overall success rate of applications for ARC grants dropped from 31.3% in 2002-07 to 20% in 2017-22. For two of the ARC’s flagship schemes – Laureate Fellowships and Future Fellowships – the success rates in 2021 were 10% and 15%, respectively. These success rates mean that many high-quality projects are going unfunded, which in turn, means that our country is being denied the potentially transformative benefits of this research. Of course, these low success rates also contribute to Australia being seen as an undesirable destination for international researchers [Footnote 9].

Public funding must be increased to ensure the ARC can fund all worthy projects, including research that advances knowledge and discovery, as determined via peer review.

University funding is vital if we are to solve the complex and wicked problems of the climate crisis, inequality, global justice and health emergencies amongst others.

7. Protect Fundamental Research
Fundamental research, also known as basic or pure research, is curiosity driven and often forms the foundation for applied research breakthroughs. But from 1992 to 2020, Australia’s investment in basic research more than halved [Footnote 10].

Meanwhile, there has been a shift in emphasis towards funding translational research and commercialisation. Last December, for example, the Morrison government signalled a new direction for the ARC, which involved it playing a vital role in the its research commercialisation agenda and better aligning its investments to strengthen the translational research pipeline [Footnote 11].

Labor has taken a similar approach in government, stating that it wants to see research conforming to the national reconstruction fund priorities [Footnote 12], which is geared at projects that expand industry, with a focus on areas including mining, transport, medical science, renewable energy, defence technology and robotics.

But research borne of curiosity holds infinite possibilities. The invention of wifi is one such famous, local example of the potential for basic research to change our lives. It is therefore short-sighted to focus on translational research at the expense of basic research. As Professor Brian Schmidt states “this short-term thinking fails to understand that the innovations we need actually come from the giant pool of ideas generated by curiosity [Footnote 13]”.

The Act should be amended to enshrine the value of fundamental research.

Concluding Remarks There is some way to go in repairing the integrity of Australian research funding and improving our international reputation after nine years of mishandling, interference and undermining by the previous government.
An ambitious, big-picture approach is needed to enable the ARC to flourish, free from political interference, and supported with adequate funding. The Review Panel should be emboldened to grapple with key questions about the purpose, value and importance of research in society.

I thank the Review Panel for its vitally important work and would be happy to assist further.

Dr Mehreen Faruqi
DEPUTY LEADER OF THE AUSTRALIAN GREENS
SENATOR FOR NSW & EDUCATION SPOKESPERSON

Footnote References
[1] Preprint ban in grant applications deemed ‘plain ludicrous’ (nature.com) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02318-8
[2] Australia must abolish law that allows politicians to veto research grants (nature.com) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01200-5
[3] ‘National interest test’ to align research with security and strategic priorities (smh.com.au) https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/national-interest-test-to-align-research-with-security-and-strategic-priorities-20181110-p50f89.html
[4] Review of the ARC Consultation Paper – Department of Education, Australian Government, page 10 https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-reviews-and-consultations/resources/review-arc-consultation-paper
[5] See for example https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/uni-researchers-top-australias-most-trusted-list and https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/public-brains-trust-uni-researchers-australias-most-trusted-source-of-facts-and-evidence-in-public-debates/
[6] It’s a fact … scientists are the most trusted people in the world, Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/its-fact-scientists-are-most-trusted-people-world
[7] See s 103 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (legislation.gov.uk) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/section/103/enacted
[8] Bradby, Professor Jodie – 2021-22 Pre-Budget Submissions (treasury.gov.au) https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/171663_bradby_professor_jodie.pdf
[9] ARC fellowships process criticised as ‘slow’ and ‘costly’ – Research Professional News https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-australia-government-agencies-2021-8-arc-fellowships-process-criticised-as-slow-and-costly/
[10] Research in Australia’s universities should be driven by curiosity, not commence , Brian Schmidt, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/25/research-in-australias-universities-should-be-driven-by-curiosity-not-commerce
[11] New direction for the Australian Research Council to help secure Australia’s recovery, Australian Research Council https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/media-releases/new-direction-australian-research-council-help-secure-australias-recovery
[12] Statement of Expectation 2022, Australian Research Council https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/our-organisation/statement-expectations-2022
[13] Research in Australia’s universities should be driven by curiosity, not commence , Brian Schmidt, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/25/research-in-australias-universities-should-be-driven-by-curiosity-not-commerce

Submission received

14 December 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.