Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move together the Opposition amendments standing in my name on sheet 4979:

(2)   Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 11), after item 12, insert:

12A  Subsection 42(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    The plan must be in writing and must not be given to the Minister unless it has been approved by the Board.

(4)   Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3  At the end of section 50

Add:

        (5)    The Minister must ask for and consider the advice of the Board before making a determination.

(5)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

4  After subsection 51(3)

Insert:

     (3A)    The Minister must cause a copy of the determination under paragraph (2)(b) to be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 1 October for the year.

(6)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

5  After subsection 52(2)

Insert:

     (2A)    A recommendation must not be made unless it has been subject to peer or expert review by the ARC.

(7)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6  At the end of section 52

Add:

        (5)    Where the Minister does not approve a proposal or makes any changes to a proposal, the Minister must table in each House of the Parliament:

             (a)    the specific area and topic of the proposal; and

             (b)    a statement of reasons for not approving or for amending the proposal.

(8)    Schedule 2, page 17 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:

7  At the end of section 52

Add:

        (6)    Material tabled under subsection (5) must not breach the privacy of any person who has submitted the proposal.

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, items 1 to 12, TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 1, items 13, 14, 19, 23 to 37, 39 to 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, TO BE OPPOSED.

Speaking briefly to our amendments, the amendments are moved to protect the integrity of the ARC and its peer review processes from meddling ministers. The amendments seek to retain the board of the ARC as an important safeguard against politicisation by this government. They enshrine peer and expert review as the main mechanisms used to determine research funding recommendations to the minister. In my speech on the second reading I outlined the importance of the fact that the minister’s unfettered power to change or abolish peer review could damage Australia’s research reputation. The amendments reject the government’s attempt to make the CEO completely vulnerable to ministerial interference. We would do this by first making sure that the CEO is appointed responsibly and is not directly answerable to the minister.

The amendments also move to reject the government’s attempt to appoint the ARC’s committees directly. The Department of Education, Science and Training tried to tell the Senate committee inquiring into this bill that there was no change to the minister’s powers. They said:

I think the first thing to point out is that the amendments actually maintain the minister’s decision-making role in appointments to designated committees and in the grant approval processes. The legislation does not enhance or diminish that; it maintains it.

That is simply not true. The bill before us and the act as it stands today are substantially different. Even the ARC concurred at the recent Senate estimates hearings that this bill is a radical departure from existing arrangements. A sensible role for the minister to play under the current act is to outline priorities and expectations for statutory bodies and lay out clear guidelines to meet those priorities. Meddling with the internal management of the ARC, its staff and its committees is not good governance.

The amendments propose a 1 October deadline by which the minister must table approved grants in every calendar year. That would provide much-needed planning security for universities and job security for many academics who rely on grant funding for employment. Finally, the amendments give the CEO enhanced responsibilities. It should be the CEO’s operational responsibility to develop and present the organisation’s strategic plan to the minister. I commend the amendments to the chamber.