Legislation to remove ministerial veto powers over research grants is laudable in its intent but has little prospect of passing parliament, former Australian Research Council (ARC) administrators believe.

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has urged changes to Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi¡¯s?bill?amending the ARC Act to require the minister to approve the agency¡¯s grant funding recommendations.

QUT says parliament would baulk at endorsing legislation?that ¡°could conflict with the minister¡¯s obligation¡­to exercise due diligence in certain extraordinary circumstances that may be difficult to anticipate, but not impossible to envisage¡±.

¡°Insistence on the current wording would thereby leave the sector unprotected from unwarranted and unaccountable political interference,¡± the university says in a submission on the bill.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

QUT¡¯s submission was?among 80??by the Senate¡¯s education and employment legislation committee. Most are from scholarly societies, academics, universities and university networks.

Eighty per cent support Dr Faruqi¡¯s amendment, describing ministerial interference in grants as an abuse of academic freedom and a massive waste of resources that elevates politics over merit and whim over expert assessment.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Just three submissions ¨C from the federal education department, the Institute of Public Affairs thinktank and the ARC itself ¨C oppose the bill outright. Another 13 say veto powers should be pared back but not necessarily abolished.

QUT¡¯s submission cites circumstances where ministerial intervention in individual grant allocations might be justified, including when the minister has lost confidence in the ARC¡¯s chief executive or learned of ¡°adverse information¡± unavailable to the ARC.

It says the ARC Act should be amended ¡°not to prevent a minister from ever departing from the ARC CEO¡¯s advice¡­but to make it difficult to do so without due reason, and impossible without being accountable to the parliament¡±.

QUT also wants the act amended to require newly appointed ARC chief executives to have ¡°international standing¡± in their research fields.

The university has an insider¡¯s perspective on the types of change likely to prove politically palatable, with former ARC administrators on its executive. Vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil previously served as ARC chief executive and registrar Leanne Harvey as the agency¡¯s executive general manager, while Professor Sheil¡¯s principal policy officer, John Byron, was an adviser to former higher education minister Kim Carr.

Other submissions say ministerial veto should only be allowed for national security reasons or where grant rules have not been followed. In such cases, the minister should be obliged to table the reasons for the grants¡¯ rejection in parliament ¨C a requirement that itself would necessitate legislative change, according to the Australian National University (ANU).

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Monash University, the Australian Academy of the Humanities and the Group of Eight (Go8) say arrangements at the ARC should be aligned with those at the National Health and Research Council (NHMRC), whose chief executive has ¡°decision-making responsibility¡± on grants.

The ARC Act says that in deciding what funding proposals to approve, ¡°the minister may (but is not required to) rely solely on recommendations made by the CEO¡±. The NHMRC Act, conversely, says grant funding ¡°is to be provided¡­subject to such conditions as the minister, acting on the advice of the CEO, determines¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Nevertheless, in apparently coordinated submissions, the ARC and education department both say they are ¡°not aware of any legislation that requires a decision-maker (in this case the relevant minister) to make an administrative decision in accordance with the views or recommendations of a third party¡±.

The education department says Dr Faruqi¡¯s amendment would be ¡°tenuous from an administrative law perspective¡±. Legislation routinely requires decision-makers to ¡°have regard to or take into account (rather than being bound by)¡± third-party recommendations, the department says.

The ARC says Dr Faruqi¡¯s bill would have the effect of ¡°making the minister answerable to the CEO¡±, weakening parliament¡¯s oversight and undermining the minister¡¯s responsibility to ensure the ¡°¡®proper¡¯ use of relevant money¡±.

ANU and the University of Melbourne say the ARC itself needs an independent review, while their representative body recommends a complete overhaul. Dr Faruqi¡¯s bill is ¡°tinkering at the edges of an outdated funding system which is long overdue for review¡±, the Go8¡¯s submission says.

The QUT submission says the ARC¡¯s problems have been ¡°exacerbated if not caused entirely¡± by ¡°constant reductions of its funding base¡± and the imposition of costly administrative tasks.

It says resources could be freed up by abolishing the research assessment exercise, Excellence in Research for Australia, and its companion Engagement and Impact Assessment. ¡°There is no clear benefit to be had in continuing to run those schemes, and the time and money could be put to far better use within the ARC.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com