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

This is a very interesting report undertaken to form an opinion of the Australian Research Council’s management of research grants and, given the substantial amount of money that the Australian Research Council manages—the ARC’s budget in 2005-06 was $571 million and the grants funding under the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Program was $81.4 million—it deserves scrutiny. The report presents some very interesting findings and additional recommendations from the Audit Office which are worthy of consideration.

Central to the ARC’s structure are the executive directors who have key responsibility for overseeing the peer review and grant selection processes in the ARC’s six discipline areas. The Audit Office found that, while the ARC appointed the executive directors for three-year terms, it needed to be very careful to ensure that the ARC’s business continuity was protected, given the likely loss of knowledge with the end of their terms of appointment. While the ARC staggers the appointment of executive directors, the Audit Office found the risks associated with their turnover such as loss of corporate knowledge were not identified in the ARC’s risk management plan. They recommend that better documentation of administrative processes would also assist the ARC to maintain business continuity and a sound knowledge of grant processes among the ARC staff.

The ANAO audit also found that, while the ARC is part of the Education, Science and Training portfolio, there is little documentation describing the arrangements between the Department of Education, Science and Training and the ARC for key administrative processes such as clearing key documents or exchanging information and data. The ANAO noted that the then minister intended to ‘retire’—that is a euphemism, if ever I have heard one—the ARC’s board in 2006, which was duly done through the abolition of the board in the bill that we debated earlier this year. The Secretary of the Department of Education, Science and Training would therefore no longer provide links between the two agencies through her board membership, so the ANAO considered that there would be a benefit in the ARC and the Department of Education, Science and Training agreeing on their consultative and reporting activities, in a memorandum of understanding, to ensure regular and ongoing information exchanges on key policy and administrative matters, and that this step would be consistent with the Uhrig review.

The ARC operates in an environment where any perceived conflict of interest could easily undermine its reputation. The ANAO found that the ARC had developed conflict of interest guidelines and was making a concerted effort to implement these across various committees; the Audit Office identified areas that could be strengthened notwithstanding. To demonstrate sound practice and improve visibility, the ARC should strengthen its processes for managing conflicts of interest, improving particularly the request not to assess process, which is an intriguing process. I can see that the 2006 changes may make this even more difficult.

I will just focus on that for one moment. The request not to assess process and associated documentation provides for applicants making requests not to assess to identify particular assessors and ask for them to be excluded from assessing the application. The problem that we have with the process in place at the moment is that the ARC did not provide applicants with guidelines outlining acceptable or unacceptable grounds for lodging requests not to assess; many request not to assess letters contained in-confidence, sensitive or potentially defamatory information. Therefore the ARC needed to maintain appropriate security and systems for the information, but that was not necessarily the case. The process was not well documented, with no criteria or rules to assist the ARC staff in assessing the letters. That resulted in the ARC making inconsistent decisions in assessing the requests not to assess.

Furthermore, the ARC’s records did not always show the ARC’s decisions accepting or denying the applicants requests not to assess, or the reasons for the decisions at all. The ARC did not routinely inform applicants about whether or not their requests were accepted or denied. The ANAO report concluded that, while the request not to assess process did not affect a large number of applications, it was an important process because it involved potential conflict of interest issues which, if not appropriately addressed, could impact on the integrity of the grant selection process. Therefore, it recommends that the ARC have well-established and documented processes to manage that aspect of grants administration; and, certainly, it suggests that a clearer methodology for managing requests not to assess would help the ARC to avoid possible conflicts of interest and making inconsistent or unfair decisions. The report also suggested that the ARC revise its guidelines in line with better practice, review conflict of interest declarations annually as a way of maintaining compliance with conflict of interest principles, and establish a register of interests.

The ANAO also found that the ARC did not produce an external annual grants calendar. This seems a very straightforward issue but, in fact, it causes quite a lot of angst with higher education institutions. Preparing an ARC grant application can be very lengthy and very complex. The ANAO recommends that, to assist researchers in planning and preparing their grant applications, the ARC publish on a trial basis an annual calendar which includes standard or indicative dates for release-of-funding rules and submission of applications. Providing stakeholders with timely information on scheduling of key activities and time lines would seem to me to be a very sensible way to go if you are managing such a complex grants program. The ANAO considers that the publication of an annual calendar would strengthen the ARC’s business planning and enhance the visibility of the various National Competitive Grants Program schemes, providing ARC staff and stakeholders with the information that they require. It would certainly assist stakeholders to plan their activities and resources to meet the ARC’s time lines and requirements.

The final recommendation, which I want to mention just briefly, concerns the post-award grants management. The report recommends that the ARC strengthen their capability in the area of post-award management and monitoring. Interestingly, the ANAO researched, through surveys and interviews, several universities across Australia. The ANAO received information such as advice that, when partial funding of grants occurred—successful grants with reduced funding—there was no meaningful feedback, even on such crucial issues as which items on the budget were not regarded as necessary or appropriate and the fact that the conditions imposed were often unworkable; for example, a postdoctoral fellowship salary was provided but no project-operating funding was approved. I note that the ARC acknowledged that that is something they need to strengthen in their processes and that they have accepted the recommendations of the ANAO on all of the issues raised. I look forward to observing the results of the planned implementation of the systems redevelopment project aimed at integrating all aspects of grants management, which is due to be completed in 2007.

Question agreed to.