Division Description Changes — Bills — Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023; in Committee — 18th Mar 2024

Change	Division
senate vote 2024-03-18#11 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-03-28 15:33:56	Title Bills — Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023; in Committee Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Designated research programs Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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?</p> The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-18.102.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed. ### What does this amendment do? Senator Faruqi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-18.102.1), together with [another amendment](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2024-03-18/12), this amendment would: *> 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.* ### Amendment text > (1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of designated research program. ### Current text of item 2 > designated research program means the following research programs: > *>> (a) the research program known as** the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme;* >> *>> (b) the research program known as the Industrial Transformation Train*ing Centres scheme; >> *>> (c) the research program known as the Industrial Transforma*tion Research Hubs scheme; >> *>> (d) any other** research program specified in an instrument under subsection (2).* ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> <p>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?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p>~~ <p>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.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Sarah Henderson~~
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?
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-18.102.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens), which means it failed.
### What does this amendment do?
Senator Faruqi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-18.102.1), together with [another amendment](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2024-03-18/12), this amendment would:
> *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.*
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of designated research program.*
### Current text of item 2
> **designated research program** *means the following research programs:*
>
>> *(a) the research program known as the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme;*
>>
>> *(b) the research program known as the Industrial Transformation Training Centres scheme;*
>>
>> *(c) the research program known as the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs scheme;*
>>
>> *(d) any other research program specified in an instrument under subsection (2).*
~~Anthony Chisholm~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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~~
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.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~