Australia¡¯s government has signalled its readiness to?compromise on?the detail of its?reforms to?the Australian Research Council (ARC), as it?tries to?shepherd them through parliament.

The bill was approved on 7?February by?the House of?Representatives, where the Labor government has a?majority, but it faces a?difficult passage in?the Senate. The opposition vowed to?fight the legislation primarily on?the grounds that it?¡°removes the capacity for ministerial discretion or?intervention¡± over grant funding decisions.

¡°That is exactly what this bill is intended to?do,¡± the education minister, Jason Clare, told parliament. ¡°It¡¯s what the independent ARC review recommended ¨C to end the days of political interference upending the independent peer review process; to stop the minister of the day from being free to spike research projects on a?whim.¡±

But the shadow education minister, Sarah Henderson, said funding decisions should be made by ¡°elected representatives [who] are accountable to the Australian people, not untouchable boards or committees¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°Without oversight from the minister, there is the risk wasteful or questionable projects, which may involve large travel or other inappropriate costs, will be funded without recourse,¡± she said.

Mr Clare told parliament that the government would consider advice from a?parliamentary committee ¡°as?the bill moves to the Senate¡±. The Labor-dominated committee had recommended the bill¡¯s passage but offered ¡°suggestions that could improve the operation of the legislation¡±.

ÖйúAƬ

They included increasing the size of the proposed ARC board, clarifying the ARC chief executive¡¯s relationship with the board and reviewing the board¡¯s effectiveness.

The Australian Greens also offered recommendations, including tightening the definition of ¡°designated¡± funding research schemes that will continue to?require ministerial sign-off.

The designated schemes ¨C currently the ARC Centres of Excellence, Industrial Transformation Training Centres and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs ¨C allocate easily the ARC¡¯s biggest grants of around A$5?million (?2.6?million) each for the training centres and research hubs, and A$35?million for the centres of excellence.

The committee was told that these schemes warrant ministerial approval because they support ¡°major research capability¡± rather than individual research projects. But some universities warned that this distinction needed to be clarified, to prevent a future minister resuming control of grant funding decisions by designating all schemes.

ÖйúAƬ

The opposition implied nefarious motivations for giving special treatment to the schemes with ¡°the biggest ribbon-cutting or photo opportunities¡±. The shadow science minister, Paul Fletcher, also criticised the government for failing to provide separate funding to cover the operating costs of the new board, estimated at A$1.5?million a?year.

While some of these costs could have been met by disbanding the current ARC Advisory Committee, given that the new board will have an advisory role, the legislation maintains both bodies.

Debate on the bill appears likely to resume in about three weeks, with the Senate in recess for a fortnight after 8?February. With the opposition determined to vote against the measures, the government will require the support of the Greens and two other independent or minor party senators.

The Greens, who oppose ministerial intervention in research funding decisions, said they were yet to finalise their stance on the bill.

ÖйúAƬ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com