Consideration of the Evidence
1.1 The
Committee received 21 submissions to its inquiry. At its public hearing on 14 November 2000 it heard from representatives of
four peak organisations and from officers of the Higher Education Division of
the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). The evidence
focussed on perceived weaknesses in the bill, as identified in some of the
issues described below. There was broad support for the policy of
re-establishing the ARC on a firm legislative foundation for the purposes of
advising the government and for recommending and administering research grants.
Ministerial powers and accountability
1.2 A
number of submissions referred to what their authors considered to be the
excessively wide discretion given to the minister in relation to the allocation
of funding. The Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC), which supported
the broad thrust of the legislation, was critical of provisions which appeared
to allow a minister to disregard ARC advice in relation to a funding proposal
or a variations in funding for an approved proposal. The AVCC considered that
the ministers approval or otherwise should be based only on recommendations or
advice from the ARC.[1]
1.3 The
Council of Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) made the same point,and claimed
that this exercise of ministerial discretion could reflect upon the
professionalism, independence and integrity of the ARC, creating a ‘short-term
focus’ on its activity and compromising the peer-review process.[2]
1.4 In
response to these claims officers of the Department of Education, Training and
Youth Affairs explained that the bill under review would provide a legislative
basis for peer review; that recommendations for funding would be dependent on
this process, and that the minister would be specifically precluded from
directing the ARC to provide a particular recommendation. On the issue of the
sources of ministerial advice, the Department’s view was that:
...there are a number of reasons why it is not appropriate for a
minister to rely on only one source of advice. The minister may seek other
sources of advice—it is quite appropriate for any government and for any
minister to take a wide range of soundings on what funding ought to be provided
from government. However, in determining that he does not wish to take a
particular piece of advice from the ARC, he may not direct the ARC to provide a
particular recommendation and he may only fund a grant that has gone through
the peer review process. So the legislation is quite specific that the funding
that will be made available to researchers must have been through this
particular process. The ARC must provide advice to the minister, and the
minister may take that advice into account in making his decisions.[3]
1.5 The
Committee takes the view that a minister may need to take account of factors
about which the ARC may lack the capacity to take into account when making
recommendations. While the Committee recognises that a minister may find a high
degree of protection in a provision which puts decisions in he hands of
statuary officials, it considers the fettering of ministerial decisions to be
undesirable on principle. The exercise of ministerial discretion is subject to
the normal scrutiny of Parliament.
1.6 Another
issue arising from evidence received by the Committee was that the new bill
does not provide for the ARC to initiate its own inquiries. In the Committee’s
view, the practical limitations of the absence of any independent power of
investigation is negligible. The ARC may always request the minister’s
concurrence to an inquiry into a particular matter, and the Committee considers
it most unlikely that such a request could be ignored, coming as it does from
ministerial appointees. The Committee notes advice from the AVCC that the ARC
has rarely exercised its current power to hold independent inquiries.[4] The Committee does not regard
this matter as being of any cause for concern.
Non-completion of courses
1.7 In
his closing statement on the debate in the House of Representatives, the
Minister stated that one of the concerns of the Government has been that many
postgraduate students have not been offered the degree of supervision and the
quality training environment which would assist their studies. The result has
been the very high level of non-completions by postgraduate research students
in Australia. Less than 60 per
cent of postgraduate research students complete their courses within seven
years. There are many institutions where the completion rates are below 40 per
cent; and some institutions where completion rates are not much more than 10
per cent. It is evident to the Committee that this amounts to a serious waste
of resources; an erosion of the knowledge and skills base in the community; and
an unfortunate legacy of underachievement experienced by many of these
students. The Committee believes that the policy put forward in the White Paper
and embodied in the legislation will provide a very powerful incentive for
universities to assist their students to complete and to provide those students
with excellent research training environments.[5]
1.8 Critics
of the legislation argue that the fundamental problem in the proposed funding
model is an over-reliance on completions as the funding driver in the Research
Training Scheme. The argument put by the Council of Australian Postgraduate
Associations is that when as much as 82 per cent of research funding is
determined by completion, this will affect the scope and style of the research
to be done. Ambitious, and therefore protracted, research is likely to be discouraged
under such a scheme.[6]
1.9 The
Committee regards such comments as speculative at best. According to advice
given to the Committee, preliminary research carried out by DETYA confirms a
view among universities that wastage of effort is clearly evident in
postgraduate studies. There is lack of attention to the needs of students and
inadequate alignment of research strengths with enrolments. DETYA officers have
reported to the Committee opinions expressed in universities that a faster time
for completion is consistent with requirements, in a knowledge-based economy,
for the findings of research students to be relevant to their needs and to make
an impact on society.[7]
The Committee notes the discretion provided for in the bill for the minister to
extend the period of research funding eligibility.
1.10
The Committee notes that one aspect of the White
Paper, Knowledge and Innovation, which has attracted a lot of comment in
the debate in the House, and in evidence to the Committee, has been the
creation of the two performance-based block funding schemes, the Institutional
Grants Scheme and the Research Training Scheme. The Committee notes the
Government’s commitment to ensuring that the research training environment
provided within Australia's
universities is of the highest standard. The accreditation of research training
management plans places a long-overdue quality control filter on funding
applications. Objections to such a scheme are at odds with complaints about
excessive ministerial control over funding processes. The Government’s concern,
and one that is shared by the Committee, is that these bills will ensure the
most effective allocation of resource funds, securing a strong higher education
research sector in Australia.
The new legislation establishes a key element for successful innovation in the
research and development endeavours of Australian universities.
Opening of ARC grants to private corporations
1.11
The Committee notes that funds for the Research
Training Scheme and the Institutional Block Grants Scheme are allocated on the
basis of performance-based formulae which reward institutions’ relative success
in attracting research students, winning research income and generating
publications. This policy change has aroused adverse comment in some
submissions, chiefly on the basis that research funds may need to be spread
more thinly across more institutions, and because it is inappropriate for the
ARC to provide research funding to some institutions currently ineligible for
funding.
1.12
The National Tertiary Education Industry Union
(NTEU) claims that if this proposal is permitted to proceed it will undermine
the notion of the ‘public university’, and will accelerate arguments for the
adoption of market models in the funding of Australian higher education.[8]The NTEU stated, in part:
...it is important to keep in mind that the function of publicly
funded research is to generate outcomes that can be captured by a wide range of
users and that will benefit the society as a whole. ... I do not think it is in
the national interest for private institutions to use public funds to generate
research and research education when the benefits will flow principally to them
rather than being disseminated with the wider community.[9]
1.13
The Committee believes that such views as these
indicate a misconception about the intent of the legislation and its likely
consequences. The Government has indicated that institutions not currently
funded under the precursors to these Schemes are unlikely to attract
substantial funding under the new arrangements, although there is an explicit
intention to ensure that private universities such as the University of Notre
Dame Australia and Bond University should
be able to compete on the basis of their performance.[10] It was explained to the
Committee that:
The way the arrangements will work is that the formulae reflect
the institutions’ performance in the funding programs. An institution that has
no performance would have great difficulty establishing its claims and
therefore securing funding under these particular programs. There are a couple
of institutions that currently have very small amounts of funding available to
them, a very small number of APAs—only one or two—and who have only very
recently been admitted to ARC programs for applications in small grants. Those
institutions would take quite some time before they could build up sufficient
performance claims to actually start figuring in the performance formulae.[11]
1.14
The Minister, Hon David Kemp MP, addressed
concerns raised by Opposition speakers during the second reading debate in the
House of Representatives on the issue of private research organisations. As the
Minister explained:
Some members opposite have suggested in the debate that
institutions such as Telstra and BHP would receive this funding ahead of rural
and regional universities. I can assure the House that this will not be the
case. As far as I am aware, BHP is not university. It has not submitted, and
likely has no intention of submitting, a research and research training
management plan to the government, and it has not been listed as an accredited
institution on the Australian qualifications framework registers, both
requirements which must be met by an institution if it is to be eligible for
funding under these schemes. ...In relation to the funding programs administered
by the Australian Research Council, it may interest members opposite that
institutions other than universities already receive Commonwealth funding for
research. In particular, museums successfully compete for Australian Research
Council funding, as do not-for-profit research agencies.[12]
1.15
The Committee notes that the Australian Vice
Chancellors’ Committee raised the issue of ministerial powers in relation to
the accreditation of research institutions. This would normally be a state
matter, but Schedule 1 of the ARC (Consequential and Transitional Provisions)
Bill 2000 amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to provide for a
Commonwealth minister to develop criteria for approving institutions for
funding purposes. (Subsection 23 (1D) and (1E)). The AVCC considered this
provision to be open-ended.
1.16
As the AVCC itself conceded, however, the
funding criteria are set down in an instrument that is subject to disallowance
by Parliament. The Committee notes that such institutions would be subject to
the same stringent processes of peer review as university research units. It
appears that the intentions of the bill in this regard are consistent with the
policy contained in the White Paper. Finally, the Committee heard evidence that
the Minister, as chair of MCEETYA, recently signed up to a set of protocols
intended to achieve national consistency for the accreditation of higher
education institutions and courses.[13]
The Committee therefore sees very little possibility of a minister
inappropriately exercising discretion under subsection 23 (1D) and (1E).
Conclusion
1.17
These bills achieve two desirable policy
objectives in relation to research funding. First, they provide a secure
legislative foundation for the Australian Research Council. Second, they establish
long-overdue provisions ensuring that the research efforts of Australian
universities and their postgraduate students are pursued in a way that brings
maximum benefit to universities, researchers and the nation.
1.18
The requirement that the ARC engage in long-term
research planning, and that universities tighten their procedures in
applications for funding grants, puts universities on notice that post graduate
students require a higher level of support than has always been offered in the
past. The Committee expects that the measures contained in these bills will
result in a greatly increased proportion of postgraduate students completing
their courses. The Committee believes that the passage of these bills will
result in a renewed energy and sense of purpose in Australian university-based
research endeavours.
1.19
The Committee commends this bill to the Senate.
Senator John
Tierney
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page