Australian Democrats Minority Report
1.1
In its December 1999 White Paper, Knowledge
and Innovation: A policy statement on research and research training (‘the
White Paper’), the Federal Government proposed a series of reforms designed to
encourage the development of a ‘strong and vibrant research base’.
1.2
At the centre of these reforms is the
restructuring of the Australian Research Council (ARC), to make it ‘an
independent and responsive ARC that is able to play a more strategic role in
providing advice on the allocation of funding’. The changed role and functions
of the ARC are set out in 2.2 of the White Paper as:
- an enhanced role in the provision of strategic advice to
Government regarding research in the university sector;
- increased responsibility for the administration of research
funding programmes for which funds will be appropriated under the new Act;
- a reformed governance and organisation structure reflecting the
need to link university research with the innovation system;
- an enhanced capacity to identify and respond to emerging areas of
research excellence; and
- an accountability framework emphasising transparency and
performance.
1.3
The Australian Democrats do not believe that the
Bills, as currently drafted, serve these aims, and will move to amend them accordingly.
Independence
of the ARC compromised by the bill
1.4
The Government has touted these reforms as
enhancing the independence of the ARC. In effect, the autonomy of the ARC has
been undermined by a number of proposed reforms.
Power
to initiate own inquiries
1.5
Under the proposed legislation, the ARC is to
carry out ministerial requests for advice. However, the capacity for the ARC to
carry out its own inquiries, as provided in the Employment, Education and
Training Act 1988, into research-related matters has been removed.
1.6
These provisions may be contrasted with the
legislation governing the operation of the National Health and Medical Research
Council (NH & MRC), which provides that the NH & MRC may initiate its
own inquiries.
1.7
In a climate of increased emphasis on the need
for research, development and innovation, the role of the ARC in identifying
research priorities and innovative capacity is more important than ever. Any
diminution of this role will be strenuously resisted by the Australian
Democrats.
1.8
The abolition of the National Board of
Education, Employment and Training has already reduced the Commonwealth’s
capacity to undertake inquiries into education and training priorities. It is
doubtful whether the Minister will be an adequate replacement for the ARC in
undertaking similar inquiries in the research sector.
1.9
The Democrats endorse the comments of the
Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) on this point:
A professional, independent and well-managed ARC with the
capacity to initiate inquiries, is considerably better placed to identify
emerging research issues than a Minister.[1]
1.10
Certainly, the fourth role identified in the
White Paper for the ARC, regarding the capacity of the ARC to identify and
respond to emerging areas of research would appear to require the power to
initiate its own inquiries.
Recommendation 1
That the Bill be amended to give the ARC the power
to initiate its own inquiries.
Ministerial Accountability
1.11
The proposed legislation sets out a procedure
for reporting of Ministerial directions to, and requests for advice from the
ARC which the Democrats believe are inadequate to ensure accountability or
transparency.
1.12
As presently drafted, the bill merely requires
that the ARC annual report note any Ministerial direction or request. This
departs from the current requirement that the Minister table all particulars of
directions and requests for advice in a timely fashion.
Recommendation 2
That particulars of directions and requests for advice be tabled to both Houses
of Parliament within 15 sitting days – echoing the provisions applicable to the
NH & MRC.
Long-term, strategic planning role of ARC
1.13
The wide ranging powers of direction granted the
Minister under this bill have the capacity to further undermine the
independence of the ARC, and its ability to undertake the long-term planning
and research in the area of research funding priorities.
1.14
The Australian Democrats endorse the concerns of
the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations on this point, that
‘excessive ministerial direction will inevitably create a short-term focus’.[2]
Recommendation
3
To ensure that the ARC is able to undertake its functions free from short-term
pressures, the Democrats will move amendments to mirror provisions of the NH
& MRC ACT to limit the scope of ministerial directions.
Strategic Plans
1.15
It is the view of the Democrats that the
requirement that the ARC prepare annual strategic plans for ministerial
approval may further subject the decision-making and strategic planning role to
short-term pressures, as well as taking up resources better directed towards
other strategic activities.
Recommendation 4
The Democrats will move to extend the period for strategic plans to a
three-year basis.
Caps between programs
1.16
The Australian Democrats believe that the goal
of establishing a more independent ARC, and enhancing the strategic
decision-making capacity of the ARC requires that its powers be increased, and
that the power to set caps between research programs is a power more
appropriately the preserve of the ARC, than wholly that of the Minister.
Recommendation 5
That the bill be amended to give the ARC, rather than the Minister, the power
to set caps between research programs.
Minister required to consult with ARC on funding
decisions
1.17
The Democrats note the intent of Section 52(4)
of the bill, that the Minister be satisfied with advice he or she receives on
funding matters from the ARC.
1.18
However, the Democrats endorse concerns
presented in evidence to the Committee that the qualification in the clause
that the Minister is not required to rely on advice presented by the ARC goes
further than required.
1.19
Evidence was presented to the Committee by the
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) as to
the desirability of having an independent body responsible for allocating
research funding to ensure freedom from intervention on issues appropriately
referred to an Institutional Ethics Committee. As FASTS note in their
submission:
FASTS considers the matter of increased Ministerial powers a
very serious issue. For the community to retain confidence in Australian
research, then the ARC, together with Institutional Ethics Committees, must
have, and be seen to have, an independence free from political influence.
Recommendation 6
That the bill be amended to ensure that the Minister must consult with the ARC,
and make directions pertaining to specific grants only after such consultation,
and with the recommendation or agreement of the ARC.
Student representation
1.20
The Australian Democrats have long been strong
supporters of increased student representation in the management of issues and
affairs which affect them. As noted by CAPA in its submission, research
students perform approximately 60 percent of the research in universities, and
produce approximately 35 percent of publications.[3]
Recommendation 7
That a student representative be included on the ARC Board, either as an
additional board member or non-voting associate member.
Appointment of CEO
1.21
The Democrats accept the concerns raised by the
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) regarding good governance and the
procedure for appointing the Chief Executive Officer of the Board.
Recommendation 8
That clause 34, and consequential provisions, be amended to provide that the Board,
not the Minister, be responsible for appointing the Chief Executive Officer.
Australian
Research Council (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2000
1.22
This bill amends sections 17 and 23 of the
Higher Education Funding Amendment Act 1988 to provide funding for the ARC and
implement proposals contained in the 1999 White Paper to establish two
competitive funding schemes: the Research Training Scheme (RTS) and the
Institutional Grants Scheme (IGS).
Timeline for implementation of White Paper proposals
1.23
In presenting its White Paper on postgraduate
research, the Government indicated that the proposals it contains would not be
implemented until 2002. The Australian Democrats do not believe that this
timeline needs to be brought forward, and will move to delete aspects of the
legislation not dealing with the funding of the ARC.
Quantum of funding
1.24
Many of the submissions to the Committee argued
that current levels of research and research training funding are inadequate to
meet the needs of the sector, and that making these funds open to competition
from private providers would place further pressure on institutions already
struggling to meet Australian’s ongoing and future research needs.
1.25
The bill provides for the transfer of $700
million of funds from operating grants under Section 17 of the Higher Education
Funding Act to a separate pool of funding under Section 23 of that Act, opening
up eligibility to that funding to institutions and organsiations not listed in
the Schedule to the Act.
1.26
Without a substantial increase in the quantum of
funding to compensate for past cuts and the decline in research funding
relative to GDP (7 percent since 1995-6), the possible diversion of funds away
from public institutions to private organisations institutions will exacerbate
these pressures.
1.27
A number of concerns with this model have been
presented to the Committee, and the Democrats agree with the National Tertiary
Education Union that, as these changes are not related to the establishment of
the ARC, and its ongoing funding, they do not need to be dealt with until these
concerns are heard and considered.
Effect on existing cooperative research schemes
1.28
The Democrats note the concerns presented by the
University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association
regarding the degree to which opening public funding to competition may also
undermine existing cooperative research schemes. The Democrats believe that
these, and other concerns raised in other submissions and in evidence to the
Committee, require further consideration, and that the timeline for any
introduction of contestability to funding allocation should not be shortened,
to allow these concerns to be considered.
Innovation
Summit Implementation Group and Report of the Chief Scientist
1.29
The Democrats also place on record their
concerns that the implementation of these changes may pre-empt the final
response to the report of the Innovation Summit Implementation Group and the
Report of the Australian Science Capability Review, by the Chief Scientist, Dr Batterham.
1.30
The Democrats believe the proposed changes to
research funding contained in this bill need to be re-considered in light of
the recommendations of these reports.
Australian Qualifications Framework and Accreditation
1.31
The Democrats note the concerns presented in a
number of submissions regarding the power of the Minister to accredit
institutions to access public funding through the Research Training Scheme and
Institutional Grant Scheme.
1.32
The Democrats believe that the implementation of
these proposals has the capacity to undermine State and national accreditation
processes, including the listing of institutions eligible for public funding in
Schedule A of the Higher Education Funding Act and on the Australian
Qualifications Framework (AQF).
1.33
The Democrats are particularly worried that
provisions may provide a means by which institutions may avoid accreditation
processes by directly lobbying the Minister.
1.34
The White Paper states that a new independent
Australian University Quality Agency will be established to ‘audit the quality
of higher education institutions. Under this framework, the new Agency... will
verify the claims made by institutions in their Research and Research Training
Management Plans’.
1.35
The current bill exceeds the proposals contained
in the White Paper, particularly with regard to accountability and
transparency. The Australian Democrats do not see how the proposals in the bill
in any way enhance accountability or transparency in the accreditation process,
and will rather undermine existing and proposed processes of accreditation.
1.36
As the Committee of Deans of Australian Medical
Schools stated in their submission:
At a time when Australia needs to increase its international
competitiveness in our innovation systems through research and research
training, it would seem contradictory to undermine established accreditation
and quality processes.
1.37
This echoes the Government’s commitments in the
White Paper:
In a world in which geographic barriers to the provision of
education and research are breaking down, the reputation and quality of
universities, both individually, and collectively at the national level,
becomes critical.
1.38
The Democrats endorse concerns presented to the
committee that in assigning accreditation power to the Minister, we risk the
perception of a quality higher education and research sector assessed by a
transparent and accountable process.
Recommendation 9
That provisions under Section 23 (1D(b)) be deleted.
The Democrats reserve the right to move further amendments on these points.
Conclusion
1.39
The Australian Democrats do not believe the
bills provide for an independent ARC, capable of achieving the goals assigned
it in the White Paper. With investment in Australia’s research capacity a rightly growing priority, it is important
that the foundations of a transparent, accountable system of research funding
allocation and future research planning are sound. The Democrats will move
amendments to these bills to achieve that end.
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page