From:	Melissa Rooney [Melissa.Rooney@sci.monash.edu.au]
Sent:	Monday, 2 April 2001 3:19 PM
To:	fpa.sen@aph.gov.au; eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Subject:	matched funding: more bark than bite!
I am an ARC research fellow in the Chemistry Department of Monash 
University and would like to offer my opinions and observations on 
three points:

1) In the last two staff meetings, I have heard about funding 
opportunities from University and from Government levels that are read 
with optimism until the final stipulation-“matched funding required.” 
Oftentimes it appears as though the government requires matched funding 
from the university, who then requires matched funding from the 
departments…so it becomes a double wammy! While it may be the way to go 
in some circumstances (i.e. to incorporate industry funding of 
scientific research), this strategy of matched funding is going to hurt 
our university system if it is the only method of funding available to 
the science faculty (or any faculty for that matter)...and more and 
more, this appears to be the case. How can the Chemistry Department 
match $250,000, when it can barely afford to operate its own teaching 
laboratories? We are having problems coming up with funding to hire the 
professors, lecturers, and demonstrators needed to effectively educate 
science students, and we can't use the research money available to us 
because we can't match the funds! The Monash University Chemistry 
Department is of the highest international and national repute (as 
shown by their academic output in students and publications, 
particularly since I first arrived on the scene in 1998)--it is 
despicable that they do not receive more financial support, especially 
since such funding would be achievable if only the chemistry department 
wasn't treading water financially, if only they could "match the 
funding." The idea of "matched funding" has the added frustration in 
that it results in strong financial support of those 
faculties/organizations that already have the money in the first place--
the rich get richer, and the institutions that need the funding the 
most cannot match it and so must go without. "Matched funding" sounds 
good, but more and more it is a bark without bite. To the public it 
sounds as though the government is providing the necessary funding to 
universities, the universities just aren't taking it; and that is 
simply not true--the universities cannot afford the stipulations. This 
situation must be rendered, or we may very well end up with only a 
handful of universities that can afford such a funding strategy, 
thereby decreasing the options for the students and the diversity of 
research necessary to maintain the high standards that Australia has, 
until this point, been able to maintain world-wide.

2) I still don't understand why every post-doctoral researcher I have 
encountered (receiving ARC support) must have their salaries topped-up 
by their respective university. Why can't the ARC actually pay-out the 
current salary-rate of post-doctoral candidates? Again, it seems a bit 
of a wolf in sheep's clothing. The government appears to be providing a 
plethora of jobs for young academic investigators, but in each case, 
what they are providing is at least 10% short of what the post-docs 
should be paid by today's standards, leaving it for their respective 
departments, who are already treading water financially, to come up 
with the cash. Again, in order to receive the funding, the university 
must first come up with some cash. Why must we play this game--why not 
just give it to them in the first place? 

3) I do not understand why there is not more support for the academic 
side, as opposed to research development, of university operations. At 
Monash, retirements are occuring without refilling the positions, and 
professors are having to uphold their research, teach more classes and 
perform a plethora of administrative responsibilities, working 60 hour 
weeks (or more!) for no increase in pay or incentives. It seems to me 
that universities would benefit from a purely academic fellowship, 
whereby they receive money for the purpose of hiring a lecturer to 
perform academic duties, or a person to perform some of the necessary 
administrative duties, thereby reducing the work for some of the 
professors. Perhaps university departments could write a grant, making 
their case for insufficient funds and/or inadequate staff (and 
providing financial/budgetary proof), and those judged the most in need 
could be given additional funds. I realize this may be an idealistic 
approach, but something must be done about the increased work-load of 
academics. If you have a better idea, let’s hear it…but please, no 
matched funding!

Thanks in advance for considering these thoughts and opinions. I hope I 
am not naive in thinking that we can have a more fair funding system 
that looks out for the academic output (i.e. students) as well as the 
research output (i.e. publications).

Sincerely,
Melissa Rooney

Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
School of Chemistry
PO Box 23
Monash University Vic 3800
Australia

phone +61 03 9905 1520
fax   +61 03 9905 4597
email melissa.rooney@sci.monash.edu.au