Six Australian research grants vetoed on national interest grounds had previously been judged in the national interest by the research funding agency¡¯s chief executive, a Senate estimates committee has heard.

And no criteria existed to determine that the research projects did not represent ¡°value for money¡± ¨C the other reason they were ostensibly vetoed by acting education minister Stuart Robert.

The six projects were among about 600 recommended for funding in a brief sent from the Australian Research Council (ARC) to Mr Robert on 2 December last year. The ARC had planned to issue its recommendations in October, but the ¡°very complex process¡± had taken longer than anticipated.

The council provided two revised briefs on 13 and 14 December after Mr Robert requested more information on ¡°due diligence¡± matters.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The estimates committee was looking into the circumstances that prevented the approved grants being announced until Christmas Eve ¨C barely a week before the money was due to start flowing ¨C after the six grants had been rejected. The delay and the vetoes provoked outrage in Australia¡¯s research community.

In the latest expression of concern, parliament¡¯s House of Representatives has been to ¡°prevent political interference in research grants¡± by scrapping ministerial discretion over individual projects.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The petition¡¯s author, Queensland University of Technology informatics professor Marcus Foth, is one of the ARC College of Experts members who decried the grant vetoes in a January open letter. ¡°Ministerial decision to override the ARC¡¯s recommendations for funding undermines a rigorous, multi-stage selection process,¡± his petition says.

Liberal National Party senator Amanda Stoker, who represented Mr Robert in the estimates hearing, defended his right to overrule the recommendations. ¡°As a government, we make no apologies for making sure that Australians get the best possible value for money from our world class research programmes,¡± she said.

¡°We are very happy to stand by the decision to reject a research project on how climate shaped the Elizabethan theatre. Presumably it¡¯s something about how the theatre might have needed a roof. It¡¯s pretty hard to justify ¨C at the price of A$449,000 [?238,000] ¨C as reflecting the needs and interests and priorities of a nation that is dealing with many challenges.¡±

The committee heard that the six vetoed humanities projects would have attracted grants totalling A$1.38 million. ¡°That was about one and a half million dollars of savings,¡± said the committee¡¯s chair, government senator Matt Canavan. ¡°Thank you, Minister Robert.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The committee also heard that the ¡°vast majority¡± of the A$2.2 billion?the government has pledged to spend on university research commercialisation will not be allocated until after 2026, and consequently falls outside the spending commitments to be outlined in this year¡¯s federal budget.

About A$829 million is due to be allocated to the initiative over its first four years, with A$500 million of the money earmarked for its cornerstone ¨C a A$1.6 billion commercialisation fund ¨C to be firm spending commitments.

But the committee heard that the commercialisation initiative will attract ¡°new funding¡±, and existing ARC schemes ¨C including Discovery Projects, the major support vehicle for basic research ¨C will continue to dispense grants ¡°at approximately the same levels as previous years¡±.

Acting ARC CEO Judi Zielke said she expected guidelines for the forthcoming round of Discovery Projects, which had been delayed by changes to the national interest test, to be released ¡°within weeks¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com