Federal Government plans to change the way the Australian Research Council works, to implement the Sheil Review of the Agency’s Act.
Research lobbies responses vary from the okay to the alarmed at proposals from the Department of Education for the necessary Bill’s wording.
Universities Australia (UA) was frank. “As a general point, it must be noted that given the unequivocal government response … and the minister’s public comments, UA expects that the recommendations will be implemented in full and in good faith.”
UA even appeared suspicious, “in several critical areas, the discussion document provides less detail than the review recommendations and government response. It is unclear in such cases if omissions/changes in phrasing represent changes in policy or are merely the result of summarising key themes – making it difficult to be precise in our feedback.”
UA’s particular problems include the Minister having power to allocate funds independent of the National Competitive Grants process.
“UA has long advocated for protecting the limited funding available for basic research. The apparent proposed changes to the funding rules in combination with the Minister retaining approval of funding for ‘national significant investments’ would appear to allow significant scope for ministerial carve outs which may further erode funding for investigator-led research.”
Science and Technology Australia (STA) backs most changes, but digs-in on funding discovery research, wanting 70 per cent of the agency’s endowment account for pure basic and strategic basic research.
This is critical, STA suggests, as an “adequate provision to protect discovery research funding runs the risk of undermining Australia’s capability.”
Last week’s Discovery round had what is widely assumed to be an all-time low 16 per cent success rate (Future Campus, November 1).
“The knowledge-creating research that underpins all future applied research and innovation – must be enshrined in the amendments to the ARC Act,” STA states.
Innovative Research Universities is precise on policy and calls for wording that make clear what the minister and the ARC board get to allocate. For example, it warns, Discovery and Linkages schemes could fit the definition of “key national programmes,” which the minister can allocate and to prevent this they should be, “explicitly within the remit of the ARC Board approval.”
As to indexing funds, which Sheil called for, “no reference is made to indexation in the Consultation Paper or proposed ARC Act.”
It’s not over yet: UA speaks for many, maybe most in the research community, when it states the legislation that goes to Parliament should “deliver on the vision of the ARC Review panel” and that it is here to “work with the department to shape the implementation of these important reforms.”
