Division Description Changes — Bills — Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019; in Committee — 11th Feb 2020

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-02-11#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-02-21 12:25:01	Title Bills — Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019; in Committee Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 - in Committee - Public announcements of grants Description ~~<p class="speaker">Kim Carr</p>~~ <p>I would like to raise with the minister some matters in regard to the special research initiative that was flagged by the minister recently, particularly whether or not the $12 million that's been referred to is, in fact, new money. But I'd also like to raise some other matters, because the ARC was under attack this morning by a new wave of assault. Further to this program, this process of politicisation of ARC grants appears to have had some receptive hearing within the government ranks, and it follows a similar pattern. <i>The Australian</i> has reported that $262 million in grants have been awarded since 2014 to projects involving Chinese organisations. Four of these projects involved the telco Huawei. My question there specifically is: were any of these grants awarded in breach of government policy? It clearly follows a similar pattern where an unproven allegation about a purported security risk in collaboration between Australian and Chinese researchers is asserted, and then the facts seem to be ignored, particularly in regard to whether or not the project has passed the very strict security processes imposed by the Defence Trade Controls Act. Have any of these matters been in breach of the Defence Trade Controls Act, Minister? A further aspect of these campaigns seems to be that an unproven allegation is made and reported, impugning the loyalty and good standing of respected Australian researchers.</p> <p>I referred to some $262 million in grants. These grants, according to <i>The Australian</i>, included 'work on advanced materials and coatings, cryptography, quantum computing, next-generation radio technologies and machine learning'. It's alleged that there have been grave concerns because the research could have 'military applications'. It uses words such as 'could have', 'might have' and 'may be'. This is the usual pattern: there are dark conjectures about alleged possibilities, but there are no proven facts. There's no acknowledgement of the most fundamental fact of all: that these grants occurred, I will assert, under government policy; that, throughout this period, the government has actually encouraged collaboration with People's Republic of China research institutes; that it's been the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia that such practices take place, under the conditions imposed by the Defence Trade Controls Act, the strictest regime; and that no breaches have been reported in meeting those conditions. Minister, I would ask whether or not you can confirm that is the fact, as distinct from the implication in the paper today.</p> The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-11.13.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment is an attempt to address the politicisation of the grants process. ### Amendment text *> (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11),** at the end of the Schedule, add:* > > 4 After section 51 > > Insert: > *> 51A Announcements about approval of expenditure on** research programs* > > (1) The Minister must, within 21 days after making a determination under paragraph 51(2) (b): > *>>(a) make a public announcement of** the determination; and* >> *>> (b) cause a copy of the announcement to be published on** the internet.* > *> (2)** The Minister must not make an announcement under subsection (1) together with any of the following:* > *>> (a) another member of parli*ament; >> *>> (b) a candidate in an election for the Senate or** the House of Representatives.* > *> (3) An announcement made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instru*ment. > > (4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies in addition to subsection 51(3). > *> (5) In this section, member of parlia*ment means: > >> (a) a senator; or >> *>> (b) a member of the House of Rep*resentatives; or >> *>> (c) a Minister of State who is not a senator or member of the House** of Representatives; or* >> *>> (d) a person who is taken to be the President of the Senate under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965** and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or* >> *>> (e) a person who is taken to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and who is not a senator or member of** the House of Representatives.* <p>What we saw is that the ARC grant process includes a national interest test. We know this follows previous tests that were in place with very similar wording, so there was no real difference; nonetheless, those on the government side have expressed horror at the thought of this collaboration between Australian and Chinese researchers. At estimates, Senator Abetz asked a question about the grants. I didn't see this quote in the paper this morning, but Senator Abetz said in the paper today that these grant allocations had been 'deeply disturbing'—deeply disturbing, it was reported. Senator Abetz asked another question at estimates. He asked: 'Since its introduction, how many applications for the ARC funding have been rejected on the basis of failing the national interest test?' You'll be surprised to hear this, Minister Birmingham, but the answer was simple, direct and emphatic; the answer was 'none'. I must have missed that in the paper this morning.</p> <p>Given there was an assessment of the provisions of the Defence Trade Controls Act and no evidence of a security threat was discovered in any of these grants by the Australian Research Council, and given all of these grants have been signed off by a minister of the Crown, I'm wondering how it can be that there is a threat to our security. I'm wondering how undermining the integrity of the grants process through the politicisation of the grants process actually enhances our security.</p> <p>We've seen too often now the growing politicisation of the process. We saw it in the special research initiatives that the minister announced just recently. Minister, you'll be able to tell me whether or not there's any new money involved in that. The minister announced we need 'fewer people telling us what to think'. Well, I'm just wondering where in this process we would actually establish that we would have fewer people telling us what to think. I'm also wondering how making such an announcement on a day of global significance—namely, the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army—fits into the minister's process of ensuring that our understanding of history takes a more domestic and narrow focus; how a knowledge of our history will help us 'break the cycle of Australia Day antagonism' on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—whether or not there were any global implications of such an event.</p> <p>If these SRI funds are to be allocated through a normal peer-review process without political interference, I'm just wondering how the outcomes might be different from the present arrangements; how we would see the process change from the way in which grants are allocated at the moment. What happens when a historic inquiry is undertaken under the directions of a political process from a minister who seems to know better than peer-reviewed processes, a minister who seems to want a situation where we have fewer people telling us what to think? How does the process that the minister has outlined produce a result where we have fewer people telling us what to think? How is it that the historical process will be improved when the minister determines what's politically acceptable and what's not?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ <p>I'll attempt to answer the couple of questions in Senator Carr's speech. In relation to the $12 million Special Research Initiatives, I can advise Senator Carr that that funding is from within the Linkage Program. In relation to the grants that are cited in newspapers today, I understand that all grants were awarded in accordance with policies and guidelines, including adherence to the Defence Trade Controls Act. In relation to matters of collaboration, I would note that collaboration is an important part of successful research, including to maximise the impact and reach of that research, but of course emphasise that safeguards exist and are applied in relation to collaborative partners with whom such research is undertaken in collaboration.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p>~~ ~~<p>I move the Greens amendment on sheet 8831:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">4 After section 51</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">51A Announcements about approval of expenditure on research programs</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) The Minister must, within 21 days after making a determination under paragraph 51(2) (b):</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) make a public announcement of the determination; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) cause a copy of the announcement to be published on the internet.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) The Minister must not make an announcement under subsection (1) together with any of the following:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) another member of parliament;</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) a candidate in an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(3) An announcement made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument .</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies in addition to subsection 51(3).</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(5) In this section, <i>member of parliament</i> means:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) a senator; or</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) a member of the House of Representatives; or</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(c) a Minister of State who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or</p>~~ <p class="italic">(d) a person who is taken to be the President of the Senate under the <i>Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965</i> and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or</p> <p class="italic">(e) a person who is taken to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the <i>Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965</i> and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives.</p> <p>In moving the amendment I would just like to say that this is a pretty straightforward amendment. It will give certainty to researchers and it will prevent what we have seen happen recently. It will prevent the government from playing a public relations and political game with the process and also with our future. We already know from the history of this government, from sustained funding cuts to Minister Birmingham's veto of liberal arts research and Minister Tehan's politicisation of the grants announcements, that the government has time and again disrespected researchers and, frankly, made a mockery of the ARC's independence. It was quite interesting to hear Senator Van in his speech on the bill talk about bipartisanship, when we know that is the exact opposite of what the government did recently when it completely politicised the announcements for ARC grants by locking out crossbench MPs, as well as opposition MPs, from taking any part in making announcements. We do need to make sure that our best minds are given the resources and the independence that they need to do their work and to help address some of the crucial problems that we face, problems such as the climate crisis and problems such as rising inequality. I commend the amendment to the Senate.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>~~ <p>Labor does not support this amendment, but we understand the importance and intent of Senator Faruqi's amendment in seeking to remove the politicisation of the announcing of ARC grants. We've long held concerns about the politicisation of the ARC grants process, and I would really like to commend the work that Senator Carr has highlighted, showing how the work of the ARC has been undermined by the government. He has exposed many issues around the transparency of ministerial vetos of grants and the delay of funding for the ARC, despite grants having been ticked off and been ready for announcement. We have sought a briefing from the department—I'd like to thank Minister Birmingham and Minister Tehan for organising that. We understand and note the minister's comments that outline the administrative changes that have been undertaken and further note this is the information provided to us in the briefing that we received and that these arrangements were changed last year. The department has advised Labor in relation to Senator Faruqi's amendment that it would have unintended consequences and could delay announcements unnecessarily. As a result, we're not supporting the amendments today.</p> <p>However, the onus remains on the government to do the right thing and stop announcing research grants for political purposes. We note that Senator Van announced a research grant in January for research into hail. This was only days after a hailstorm swept through the ACT. Another announcement coincidently followed bushfires. The government announced this ARC grant while you were scrambling for something to make you look reputable in the government's response to bushfires. This grant had been approved many months earlier. So, if the government does not stick to its commitments, we will be here to call it into account. The government needs to implement these commitments and be seen to do it forth rightly. We will be working with all interested parties, including the Greens, on depoliticising the grants process.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Kim Carr~~
I would like to raise with the minister some matters in regard to the special research initiative that was flagged by the minister recently, particularly whether or not the $12 million that's been referred to is, in fact, new money. But I'd also like to raise some other matters, because the ARC was under attack this morning by a new wave of assault. Further to this program, this process of politicisation of ARC grants appears to have had some receptive hearing within the government ranks, and it follows a similar pattern. The Australian has reported that $262 million in grants have been awarded since 2014 to projects involving Chinese organisations. Four of these projects involved the telco Huawei. My question there specifically is: were any of these grants awarded in breach of government policy? It clearly follows a similar pattern where an unproven allegation about a purported security risk in collaboration between Australian and Chinese researchers is asserted, and then the facts seem to be ignored, particularly in regard to whether or not the project has passed the very strict security processes imposed by the Defence Trade Controls Act. Have any of these matters been in breach of the Defence Trade Controls Act, Minister? A further aspect of these campaigns seems to be that an unproven allegation is made and reported, impugning the loyalty and good standing of respected Australian researchers.
I referred to some $262 million in grants. These grants, according to The Australian, included 'work on advanced materials and coatings, cryptography, quantum computing, next-generation radio technologies and machine learning'. It's alleged that there have been grave concerns because the research could have 'military applications'. It uses words such as 'could have', 'might have' and 'may be'. This is the usual pattern: there are dark conjectures about alleged possibilities, but there are no proven facts. There's no acknowledgement of the most fundamental fact of all: that these grants occurred, I will assert, under government policy; that, throughout this period, the government has actually encouraged collaboration with People's Republic of China research institutes; that it's been the policy of the Commonwealth of Australia that such practices take place, under the conditions imposed by the Defence Trade Controls Act, the strictest regime; and that no breaches have been reported in meeting those conditions. Minister, I would ask whether or not you can confirm that is the fact, as distinct from the implication in the paper today.
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-11.13.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment is an attempt to address the politicisation of the grants process.
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:*
>
> *4 After section 51*
>
> *Insert:*
>
> *51A Announcements about approval of expenditure on research programs*
>
> *(1) The Minister must, within 21 days after making a determination under paragraph 51(2) (b):*
>
>>*(a) make a public announcement of the determination; and*
>>
>> *(b) cause a copy of the announcement to be published on the internet.*
>
> *(2) The Minister must not make an announcement under subsection (1) together with any of the following:*
>
>> *(a) another member of parliament;*
>>
>> *(b) a candidate in an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives.*
>
> *(3) An announcement made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.*
>
> *(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies in addition to subsection 51(3).*
>
> *(5) In this section, member of parliament means:*
>
>> *(a) a senator; or*
>>
>> *(b) a member of the House of Representatives; or*
>>
>> *(c) a Minister of State who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or*
>>
>> *(d) a person who is taken to be the President of the Senate under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or*
>>
>> *(e) a person who is taken to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives.*
What we saw is that the ARC grant process includes a national interest test. We know this follows previous tests that were in place with very similar wording, so there was no real difference; nonetheless, those on the government side have expressed horror at the thought of this collaboration between Australian and Chinese researchers. At estimates, Senator Abetz asked a question about the grants. I didn't see this quote in the paper this morning, but Senator Abetz said in the paper today that these grant allocations had been 'deeply disturbing'—deeply disturbing, it was reported. Senator Abetz asked another question at estimates. He asked: 'Since its introduction, how many applications for the ARC funding have been rejected on the basis of failing the national interest test?' You'll be surprised to hear this, Minister Birmingham, but the answer was simple, direct and emphatic; the answer was 'none'. I must have missed that in the paper this morning.
Given there was an assessment of the provisions of the Defence Trade Controls Act and no evidence of a security threat was discovered in any of these grants by the Australian Research Council, and given all of these grants have been signed off by a minister of the Crown, I'm wondering how it can be that there is a threat to our security. I'm wondering how undermining the integrity of the grants process through the politicisation of the grants process actually enhances our security.
We've seen too often now the growing politicisation of the process. We saw it in the special research initiatives that the minister announced just recently. Minister, you'll be able to tell me whether or not there's any new money involved in that. The minister announced we need 'fewer people telling us what to think'. Well, I'm just wondering where in this process we would actually establish that we would have fewer people telling us what to think. I'm also wondering how making such an announcement on a day of global significance—namely, the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army—fits into the minister's process of ensuring that our understanding of history takes a more domestic and narrow focus; how a knowledge of our history will help us 'break the cycle of Australia Day antagonism' on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—whether or not there were any global implications of such an event.
If these SRI funds are to be allocated through a normal peer-review process without political interference, I'm just wondering how the outcomes might be different from the present arrangements; how we would see the process change from the way in which grants are allocated at the moment. What happens when a historic inquiry is undertaken under the directions of a political process from a minister who seems to know better than peer-reviewed processes, a minister who seems to want a situation where we have fewer people telling us what to think? How does the process that the minister has outlined produce a result where we have fewer people telling us what to think? How is it that the historical process will be improved when the minister determines what's politically acceptable and what's not?
~~Simon Birmingham~~
I'll attempt to answer the couple of questions in Senator Carr's speech. In relation to the $12 million Special Research Initiatives, I can advise Senator Carr that that funding is from within the Linkage Program. In relation to the grants that are cited in newspapers today, I understand that all grants were awarded in accordance with policies and guidelines, including adherence to the Defence Trade Controls Act. In relation to matters of collaboration, I would note that collaboration is an important part of successful research, including to maximise the impact and reach of that research, but of course emphasise that safeguards exist and are applied in relation to collaborative partners with whom such research is undertaken in collaboration.
~~Mehreen Faruqi~~
~~I move the Greens amendment on sheet 8831:~~
~~(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:~~
~~4 After section 51~~
~~Insert:~~
~~51A Announcements about approval of expenditure on research programs~~
~~(1) The Minister must, within 21 days after making a determination under paragraph 51(2) (b):~~
~~(a) make a public announcement of the determination; and~~
~~(b) cause a copy of the announcement to be published on the internet.~~
~~(2) The Minister must not make an announcement under subsection (1) together with any of the following:~~
~~(a) another member of parliament;~~
~~(b) a candidate in an election for the Senate or the House of Representatives.~~
~~(3) An announcement made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument .~~
~~(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies in addition to subsection 51(3).~~
~~(5) In this section, member of parliament means:~~
~~(a) a senator; or~~
~~(b) a member of the House of Representatives; or~~
~~(c) a Minister of State who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or~~
(d) a person who is taken to be the President of the Senate under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(e) a person who is taken to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and who is not a senator or member of the House of Representatives.
In moving the amendment I would just like to say that this is a pretty straightforward amendment. It will give certainty to researchers and it will prevent what we have seen happen recently. It will prevent the government from playing a public relations and political game with the process and also with our future. We already know from the history of this government, from sustained funding cuts to Minister Birmingham's veto of liberal arts research and Minister Tehan's politicisation of the grants announcements, that the government has time and again disrespected researchers and, frankly, made a mockery of the ARC's independence. It was quite interesting to hear Senator Van in his speech on the bill talk about bipartisanship, when we know that is the exact opposite of what the government did recently when it completely politicised the announcements for ARC grants by locking out crossbench MPs, as well as opposition MPs, from taking any part in making announcements. We do need to make sure that our best minds are given the resources and the independence that they need to do their work and to help address some of the crucial problems that we face, problems such as the climate crisis and problems such as rising inequality. I commend the amendment to the Senate.
~~Louise Pratt~~
Labor does not support this amendment, but we understand the importance and intent of Senator Faruqi's amendment in seeking to remove the politicisation of the announcing of ARC grants. We've long held concerns about the politicisation of the ARC grants process, and I would really like to commend the work that Senator Carr has highlighted, showing how the work of the ARC has been undermined by the government. He has exposed many issues around the transparency of ministerial vetos of grants and the delay of funding for the ARC, despite grants having been ticked off and been ready for announcement. We have sought a briefing from the department—I'd like to thank Minister Birmingham and Minister Tehan for organising that. We understand and note the minister's comments that outline the administrative changes that have been undertaken and further note this is the information provided to us in the briefing that we received and that these arrangements were changed last year. The department has advised Labor in relation to Senator Faruqi's amendment that it would have unintended consequences and could delay announcements unnecessarily. As a result, we're not supporting the amendments today.
However, the onus remains on the government to do the right thing and stop announcing research grants for political purposes. We note that Senator Van announced a research grant in January for research into hail. This was only days after a hailstorm swept through the ACT. Another announcement coincidently followed bushfires. The government announced this ARC grant while you were scrambling for something to make you look reputable in the government's response to bushfires. This grant had been approved many months earlier. So, if the government does not stick to its commitments, we will be here to call it into account. The government needs to implement these commitments and be seen to do it forth rightly. We will be working with all interested parties, including the Greens, on depoliticising the grants process.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~