Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a number of questions for Senator Chisholm. Obviously there are many amendments before the Senate, but I would like to ask those questions now of the Minister representing the Minister for Education, who has made some disparaging comments about the opposition and the opposition's position on this bill. If the government wants to take the so-called politics out of research funding decisions, why is the government retaining ministerial discretion on programs like the Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which, in the 2022-23 year involved some $250 million or so in funding. Surely, Minister, it is gross hypocrisy from this government to suggest that you are taking the politics out of the ARC, when a huge lump of funding is being retained by the minister. In this current year, how much funding is being allocated to research funding programs over which the minister will retain his discretion? What percentage does this represent of total funding provided by the ARC?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Henderson, for that question. I'll take that on notice, and we'll try to get back to you ASAP, whilst we are still in committee on the bill. The minister will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except when approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day will, however, be involved in designated research programs which help build research capability—that is to say, not individual research projects but whole programs which will help drive Australia's research in the future. This includes programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence, the Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which have already proven to be significant engines in driving research capabilities. We are confident that that is a better way forward. We can take the interference out of the ARC projects but ensure that we can still have a good outcome where the minister is involved.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, regrettably you didn't address my question. I was seeking information on how much funding is allocated to the research funding programs that the minister will retain ministerial discretion over and what that is as a percentage of total ARC funding? I again ask you, Senator, to explain the basis on which the government is retaining ministerial discretion over some quarter of a million dollars relating to programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs scheme, for instance. This, I would put to you, is completely inconsistent with the government's position that it is taking the so-called 'politics' out of research funding decisions. If you were doing so—even though we absolutely disagree with that position—the minister would have no discretion. But the fact of the matter, based on the 2022-23 numbers, is that the minister is retaining discretion over at least 25 per cent of total funding, which is some $250 million. So could you please explain that gross inconsistency and also provide the Senate with those numbers that I'm seeking in relation to the amount of moneys over which the minister will retain discretion.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, you might have missed it. I said that we'd try and provide that information on the percentage as soon as we can, so we are endeavouring to do that. As I said, the minister will retain authority to approve grants for these three schemes in recognition of the role that they play in creating research capability for Australia. That's why we believe it's important. It will provide flexibility for the government to invest in specific research priorities, strengthen the integrity of the system by drawing on the expertise and recommendations of the College of Experts, and provide opportunities for the minister to collaborate with relevant ministers on key government priorities. That's why we believe it's important to retain that for those three projects.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you've just highlighted the gross hypocrisy of what the government is putting in terms of its position. The government is trying to prosecute an argument that it is handing over funding decision-making ability to an independent board, and yet you are now standing on your feet justifying why the minister will retain ministerial discretion over hundreds of millions of dollars. As we have made clear in our contributions in this debate, it is improper for the government to absolve itself of ministerial discretion in relation to all of the moneys provided to the ARC, and I have to raise concerns that I raised in my second reading contribution about the government's cut to research funding in the last MYEFO statement.

As you well know, the Albanese government, when it was in opposition, made a commitment before the 2022 election to increase funding for research, in fact, to three per cent of GDP. So could you please update the Senate on what's happened to that commitment, and how much additional funding this government has provided to the ARC and to research more generally. Frankly, Assistant Minister, when I look at the government's record on research, it is appalling. In the last MYEFO statement, some $102 million was cut from research programs, which shows a very poor commitment, frankly, to Australian research. So I would ask the assistant minister to explain the government's position in that respect and also update the Senate on the now government's election commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would reject the characterisation by Senator Henderson in regard to the ministerial approval of designated research programs. It is nuanced. I'd accept that, but not the claims from Senator Henderson. The minister of the day will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except where an approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day, however, will be involved in approving designated research programs, which will help build research capacity—this is to say: not individual research projects but whole programs, which will help drive Australian research and capability into the future. That is the important difference there.

In regard to university research funding, the government has a proven track record of supporting the research sector, and this bill is the latest proof of that. Following the release of the Australian Universities Accord interim report on 19 July 2023, the government acted immediately on the five priority actions it recommended. The government redirected uncommitted funding from the Regional Research Collaboration Program, as well as a small portion of funds from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program. These priority actions include the establishment of up to 20 additional regional university study hubs in regional Australia and extending demand driven funding to all First Nations students where they meet the eligibility requirements. This is a good use of taxpayers' money, helping more Indigenous children to go to university and creating opportunity for many people studying in regional areas. That's what the experts tell us we need to do, and that's what our Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 did at the end of last year, but I'm not surprised that the coalition want to oppose all of this and remain negative about that aspect.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Assistant Minister, thank you for partially answering my question, but I am deeply concerned that, in trying to explain why the government has cut this funding, this has been characterised as a small cut. This is not a small cut. This government and the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, have shown contempt for the research sector by cutting more than $102 million in the 2023-24 MYEFO in December. They slashed $46.2 million from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program and clawed back a further $56.3 million by cancelling the Regional Research Collaboration Program—two very significant research programs delivered by the former coalition government. So, when you characterise these shocking cuts as small amounts of funding, I think the facts speak for themselves, Minister. I would again ask you to explain why $102 million of funding was cut from research.

I would also ask you to address the other part of my question, which you conveniently did not address, and that is: what has happened to Labor's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? Is this another broken promise? All we have seen from this government in nearly two years is broken promises, wrong priorities and bad decisions. So I say to you, Assistant Minister, that you owe it to the Australian people to explain this massive cut to research funding and to explain what has happened to Labor's election commitment. Given you are cutting research funding, not adding any money to research funding, this is on track to being another big, fat broken promise by this government. I look forward to you providing the further information, Assistant Minister.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're not going to be lectured to about research by the representative of the previous government. I would stack our record on research up against the previous government's any day of the week. There's no better example of that than what we're doing in terms of the ARC report that is being adopted in this bill, which is being opposed by those opposite. I think the research community out there are absolutely sick of the political interference that they saw from the previous government. So we do have a different path that we are pursuing when it comes to research. I'm sure it will be welcomed by the research community, because we understand how important it is and for their international reputation as well.

We make no apologies for redirecting that funding as part of the Universities Accord interim report into things that will make a significant difference for people. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, Senator Henderson. I didn't say 'small'. I do acknowledge that there was a redirection of funding, because we believe it is important to give First Nations people in the greater metropolitan areas greater access to opportunity when it comes to university study. I've seen myself firsthand the difference that regional university study hubs are making in the community, having visited a number of them. I'm really proud about that. I think that they were something that was started by our predecessors that we're encouraged by and think they will make a significant difference, which is why we've invested more money in it. We think that they are significant and that they will make a difference, and that's why that money was redirected.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with you that the Regional University Centres, an initiative of the former coalition government that I'm very proud of, are making a real difference in regional Australia. However, I remind you that a significant number of those centres have now been put into the outer suburbs, which is most regrettable because it is regional and remote students who most need access to university. Students living in the outer suburbs can get on a train or a tram or a bus and go to university. You can't do that in the regions. So it's most regrettable that the government has decided to redirect that very important initiative. The government is expanding the program but redirecting it to suburban centres when so many regional, rural and remote students are crying out for the same opportunities to go to university.

I'm going to ask you this for the third time, Minister. In your earlier answer, you referred to this as a 'small' cut. It's not small. It's $102 million. So it's very, very disappointing that the government has made that decision. I ask you to again address the very specific question that I asked in relation to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP, as the Labor Party promised before the last election. What has happened to that election commitment, Assistant Minister?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, we absolutely stand by the decision to redirect the $102 million because we believe it will make a significant difference for First Nations people in greater metropolitan areas. In regard to the Regional University Study Hubs, I think Senator Henderson should be aware that that is an expansion of the Regional University Study Hubs and the establishment of outer suburban hubs. So it is an addition. It's not either/or, which I think is important. I think it will be welcomed by many people who live in those areas who don't have easy access to study at a tertiary institution. It's something that I think will be an important legacy of this government.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to ask you again: what has happened to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? You're continuing to refuse to answer that question. Could you please answer that question.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that a vibrant and diverse research component is an important part of a vibrant and diverse economy. Growing Australia's investment in R&D as a proportion of GDP is an important part of making that happen. Right now, we languish behind comparable nations, with overall investment in R&D as a proportion of GDP well below the OECD average.

This didn't happen overnight. Those opposite were in power for 21 of the last 27 years. The last time investment in R&D peaked at 2.25 per cent of GDP was when Labor was last in government. On the Liberals' watch, R&D investment over the last decade plunged to 1.68 per cent. For the last 10 years, those opposite let R&D spending contract across the economy. They undermined our scientists and universities and dared Australia's manufacturers to leave the country. Turning this around is going to take more than one budget cycle. But it's not just about governments. It requires a cultural shift from all of us as businesses, universities and governments. It requires moving from thinking about investment in R&D as a nice thing to have when times are good to thinking of it as being essential for an innovative, resilient country.

The Albanese government knows this and is laying the groundwork for Australia to get back off the mat. This includes things like $15 billion for the National Reconstruction Fund, $392 million for the Industry Growth Program, $9 billion in direct support for national research organisations like the CSIRO and $3.2 billion through the R&D tax incentive. It's why the Minister for Education has been undertaking the Universities Accord as well. You can see from the objectives of the government that we value research. This important bill that we're discussing today is an example of that.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take from your answer, Assistant Minister, that you're not willing to give a direct answer in relation to my question about Labor's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP. I remind you that the coalition, when last in government, invested very heavily in university research and research more broadly through the university research commercialisation package, which was a $2.2 billion investment and a very important investment not just for universities, not just for the research sector, but for our nation. It is most regrettable that while the government did adopt that package, it's started to cut into that package by cutting $46.2 million from Australia's Economic Accelerator program.

We know, we understood, and we continue to prosecute the case that research funding is no good if it sits in the bottom drawer. Research papers are no good if they don't get commercialised, if they don't lead to better outcomes for our country, particularly when we are talking about taxpayers' money here, Minister. This is of critical importance. I can tell you one of the very substantial programs that universities are continuing to celebrate is the $243 million Trailblazer Universities Program, which is boosting research and development in a number of universities after a competitive tender and driving commercialisation outcomes and also driving enormous matching investments and more from industry. This has been a monumentally successful program. We have seen nothing like this from this government. In fact, the government was so mean to the research sector that in this bill alone it cuts some $1.5 million from the Australian Research Council. It is taking that money, which would otherwise be used for research, to establish the board and for the other administrative purposes of the bill.

So I think it's fair to say that, while I accept that that research stakeholders want all of the decision-making ability in their own hands, despite the merits of research projects, the research sector has been scathing about the government's decision to cut $1.5 million from the Australian Research Council to fund the mechanisms in your bill. The government could not even find that money, let alone the $102 million that it's cut from research.

I want to move to the board arrangements. Could you please tell the Senate what the role of the CEO will be? Will the CEO report to the board?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Henderson. Just to clarify on that $1.5 million, that is departmental administrative funding. It's actually got nothing to do with the ARC's research role. In regard to the role of the CEO, the CEO's functions include the administration of the financial arrangements of the ARC, evaluating the excellence, quality and impact of research in Australian universities, and grants administration. The CEO will perform its functions in accordance with any directions given by the board and will remain responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the ARC.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will the board select its board members? Can you describe the recruitment process, please?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Henderson. The chair and its members will be appointed by the minister as significant appointments under the processes set out in the Cabinet Handbook. Board members will only be eligible if the minister is satisfied that the person has substantial experience or expertise in one or more fields of research or in the management of research. The board will reflect the diversity of the general community in accordance with general government policy and will include and Indigenous person and a regional, rural and remote representative. In addition to the requirements for board members, the chair will also be expected to hold professional credibility and significant standing in one or more fields of research or in the management of research.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might finish my questions for the moment, but I may have further questions during the committee process.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2465:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 16), after paragraph 3(b), insert:

(ba) support Australian universities to attract and retain academic researchers and promote quality academic jobs; and

This amendment would make it an object of the ARC to support Australian universities to attract and retain academic researchers and promote quality academic jobs. There is a real and urgent need to address job insecurity, casualisation and the precarious nature of work, which is rife across universities and also across the research sector. Only one in four researchers is employed on a continuing basis and 80 per cent of researchers have been on fixed-term contracts of less than three years in length. As one of the largest funders of research, the ARC must play a role in addressing job insecurity, and this amendment gives the ARC an explicit opportunity and responsibility to do that, because a quality job is a secure job.

I do want to thank the National Tertiary Education Union for their work pushing for this change and other reforms to address job insecurity throughout the university sector, and I think Minister Clare and his office for their engagement on this amendment as well.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi, for that contribution and, it would be fair to say, a pretty consistent approach to these issues over a number of years now. The government will be supporting this amendment. The independent review and the government response make clear that the ARC has a role to play in supporting Australian universities to attract and retain talented academics. We want to see our research community flourish, and part of that is improving the attractiveness of academic research roles.itchn

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no other contributions, the question before the chair is that the Greens amendment on sheet 2465 be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can cancel that division and have our opposition recorded. I seek leave to withdraw that.

Leave granted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That division has been cancelled.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Does the opposition wish to have its opposition recorded?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Yes, we do.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2469:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of Division 2, add:

11A Review of the Board

(1) In the financial year beginning on 1 July 2026, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the following:

(a) whether the functions of the Board are appropriate;

(b) whether the size and membership of the Board are appropriate.

(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

This amendment requires an independent review of the appropriateness of the ARC board's functions, size and membership to be conducted in the financial year starting 1 July 2026. This bill makes important and significant changes to the operation of the ARC, the key one being removing the minister's veto and the establishment of an ARC board to approve research funding, to pursue a range of new objectives and to be representative and diverse.

Given the nature of these changes—and we have had discussions with the government—a review after two years of the implementation of the bill does seem appropriate. This amendment provides an important oversight and review of the board to ensure that it is functioning as intended and to identify ways that it can be improved. We envisage the review would cover whether the board functions, functions independently without ministerial interference and achieves its objectives, including to support universities to attract and retain academic researchers and to promote quality academic jobs, amongst others. Given the history of political interference in the ARC by the coalition, this amendment ensures that this is an independent review which provides a report to the minister, and I do urge the minister to release the report publicly to ensure transparency. Again, I do want to thank Minister Clare and his office for working with us on this.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will support this amendment. It was a suggestion of the Senate committee that the government is happy to support, and I thank Senator Faruqi and Senator Thorpe for their engagement on this.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2469 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 2441:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph 12(4)(d), substitute:

(d) ensure that the membership of the Board reflects the diversity of the general community, to the extent that is reasonably practicable.

This amendment requires the minister to ensure that the membership of the ARC board reflects the diversity of the general community. Currently, the bill merely provides that, in appointing board members, the minister must have regard to the desirability of the membership of the board being diverse. The minister should not be considering whether diversity is desirable. The fact is that diversity is a must, and the minister must be required to ensure a diverse board. This amendment makes this the case. I note, in passing, that this complements another Greens amendment on sheet 2440, which increases the board size from five-to-seven members to seven-to-nine members to allow the board to be more diverse. I will not be moving this amendment on sheet 2440 as it has the same effect as an amendment from Senator Pocock on sheet 2413, which the Greens will support.

I have long pushed for academic governance bodies to be democratic and diverse and also in the context of this bill, and I made that point very strongly in the inquiry report to this bill. Thanks again to the government for engaging with us on this matter.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will be supporting this amendment. The bill contains strong provisions to ensure an expert board which reflects the diversity of our communities and our research sector. This amendment will help further emphasise the importance of diversity in board selections, which is important.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2441 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2395 together:

(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of designated research program.

(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (lines 7 to 11), to be opposed.

These amendments remove the minister's power to specify designated research programs in regulations under which funding for individual research projects is decided solely by the minister and not by the ARC board. While these regulations would be disallowable, significant concerns have been raised by universities, university peak bodies and researchers that this risks the minister taking sole decision-making power over a very wide range of funding decisions on individual grants.

We have worked too hard to get politics out of research funding. Really we should not be providing the minister another opportunity to interfere again if they wish to do so in the future. Research funding should be decided through a rigorous peer review process and research expertise, not by the government of the day. The minister should not be able to write themselves back into power with some funding decisions over individual research grants—at least not without greater oversight. My amendment would have the effect that an act of parliament would be required for the minister to take the significant step of obtaining sole decision-making power over research funding.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will not support the amendment. It is important that the minister retain the ability to approve research programs which create research capability, rather than programs that award individual research grants. There are appropriate protections against misuse. The minister's specification of a project as a designated research project will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as part of the normal disallowance processes.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will split the two amendments on sheet 2395. The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2395 be agreed to.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were two amendments moved together by leave. We'll now deal with the second of those amendments, which is Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 2395. The question is that item 3 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the amendment on sheet 2451, standing in my name:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 15), at the end of subsection 12(4), add:

; and (e) ensure that the membership of the Board reflects a diversity of discipline areas to the extent that is reasonably practicable.

This amendment is very simple. It gives full effect to recommendation 6 of the review, which states that the board must comprise members with:

… a combination of skills, experience, and perspectives relevant to the functions of the ARC across the spectrum of ARC disciplines, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, research administration and evaluation, and university industry partners.

Numerous submissions and stakeholders called for measures to ensure the board is comprised of individuals from a range of academic disciplines. While I endorse the existing provisions requiring a First Nations member and geographical diversity, the diversity of the general community remains open to interpretation and does not guarantee that the range of academic disciplines are represented on the board.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The processes for appointment of the board are drawn from the independent review and contain protections around diversity. The government has agreed to an amendment from the Greens which further enhanced this protection.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens, as I said earlier, have long pushed for representative and diverse governance structures in universities and research, so we will be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment (1) on sheet 2451 be agreed to.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2439 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), at the end of subsection 12(4), add:

Note: The appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with.

(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), after section 12, insert:

12A Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be a Board member under section 12;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as a Board member under section 14 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented or tabled at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the practices of that House.

(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (before line 25), before the note, insert:

Note 1: For the appointment of an acting Board member, the appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with.

(4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (line 25), omit "Note", substitute "Note 2".

The review and a number of submissions called for this act to include provisions for appointments to the board that minimise the possibility of appointments on the basis of political favour. Ministerial appointments open the ARC board up to more 'jobs for mates' being appointed by government. While we appreciate that the establishment of the ARC board is a significant step to improving the independence of ARC decisions, a number of experts and submissions proposed strengthening these provisions.

An ideal model involves a democratic process where board members are elected by the academic community in a process which is totally independent of government, such as the model used in New Zealand. These amendments, which involve an independent panel reviewing applications and shortlisting applicants to be chosen by the minister, maintain ministerial oversight while creating a significant improvement towards integrity and independence.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not support these amendments. The processes for appointment of the board are drawn from the independent review and are dealt with as part of the legislation.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will support these amendments, because we support a selection process for the ARC board members that is transparent and that reduces the risk of political appointments.

Question negatived.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2437:

(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 25 (after line 19), after paragraph 49(2)(e), insert:

(ea) require each researcher involved in the research project concerned to declare any conflicts of interest, potential conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest, to the Australian Research Council; and

This amendment will require each researcher involved in a research project to declare actual or potential conflicts of interest to the ARC, with this requirement attached directly to the funding agreement between each organisation and the ARC as a term of the funding agreement. This was proposed in the concussion in sport inquiry to improve research integrity in a field where industry backed researchers have undertaken dodgy research that has impacted people's livelihoods.

These provisions complement existing ARC arrangements and declarations of conflict of interest. They will help to ensure that no more public money goes towards dodgy industry backed research.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Thorpe. The government will support this amendment; it's a sensible addition to the primary bill and reflects good corporate governance. We're happy to support it, and I thank Senator Thorpe for her engagement on this matter.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment makes the case that ARC funding agreements require researchers involved to declare any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest to the ARC. I do note that the ARC's current policy on conflicts of interest and existing grant application processes already appear to require researchers to declare conflicts of interest. However, I think this amendment does provide clarity and the Greens will not stand in the way of it.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move the Australian Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 2394 together:

(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (line 1), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (lines 3 and 4), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(3) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (line 17), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(4) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (lines 20 and 21), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(5) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 27 and 28), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 31 and 32), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

(9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 33 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".

While this bill is a really big step forward in terms of removing the minister's veto power, I think there are some areas in this bill which still leave that power within the minister's jurisdiction. This amendment removes the minister's power to not approve, or to terminate, ARC research funding for reasons relevant to international relations of Australia. The ARC review recommended retaining a ministerial veto only for reasons of national security, but this bill broadens those reasons by adding international relations as a reason for a veto as well. Researchers, including the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences and five Australian academies, have raised concerns that this risks being interpreted broadly and could lead to unintended consequences.

The breadth of the international relations veto power is concerning because, in determining whether to veto research funding for international relations reasons, the bill explicitly notes that the minister may regard any matter they consider appropriate. This is a pretty wide discretion that does present a real risk. A huge amount of international collaboration occurs across the research sector. An explicit object of the ARC as proposed by this bill is to support collaborative research with international partners, so clearly there is a risk that the international relations veto could be relevant to many research projects and does present a risk of interference that this bill is trying to remove more broadly. My amendment would remove this risk.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will not support this amendment. The provisions around national security are drawn from existing legislation which deals with the same subject matter. It is important that the accepted statutory formulation of national security be maintained in this bill. The bill has strong protections at section 55 to ensure that this power is exercised for a proper purpose.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments 1 to 9 on sheet 2394 be agreed to.