Australian Research Council review recommendations aim to restore trust

Scientific and academic bodies have backed the ten findings of the review which they say will help restore trust in the council.

The first review of the council in its 22-year history found trust in the council had been eroded by ministerial intervention on at least five occasions, most recently in 2021.

The report said the chief executive officer should oversee the administration of the grants program and the minister should only interfere in extraordinary circumstances of national security risks with transparency and oversight of the Parliament.

"Individual grants under the [national competitive grants program] should not require approvals by the Minister, but recommendations and approvals should be made by those best placed to judge the intrinsic merit of the proposals," the report said.

The reviewers recommended a new board be established to appoint a chief executive and to make decisions on grant funding based on merit.

Four ministers on six occasions rejected grant proposals after they had been through the rigorous peer-review process.

Except for one occasion, which was on national security grounds, five of these were reportedly on the grounds of poor value for money. Humanities research projects were mostly affected by ministerial interference.

This led to a decline in morale, and the 2021 rejection by then-acting minister Stuart Robert prompted some members of the college of experts to resign.

The panel recommended the legislation be amended to clarify the purpose of the council and the scope of the national competitive grants process.

The report also includes recommendations to support Indigenous academics and early career researchers.

The review was led by Professor Margaret Sheil with Professors Susan Dodds and Mark Hutchinson.

Education Minister Jason Clare said the government would consider the report findings and respond in due course.

READ MORE:

The Australian Academy of Science endorsed the recommendations of the review, including streamlining the grant processes to reduce administrative burden.

The Academy's science policy secretary Professor Ian Chubb said the recommendations should be adopted as soon as possible because a significant portion of Australia's research sector was very dependent on council.

"One of the threads that has run through this whole report is that it's about rebuilding trust and I think that's critically important," he said.

Professor Chubb said the board of people with the right expertise would be a better structure than allowing politicians to have the final say on grants.

"I can't speak for every individual in the Australian research sector, but I can say at a sector level there was generally outrage at what appeared to be a pretty arbitrary application of a veto power."

Universities Australia chief executive Catriona Jackson said the peak body backed the reform agenda.

"We are best served by a system with strong governance, peer review and genuine transparency at its core and we are pleased that the recommendations to government support these needs," Ms Jackson said.

Science and Technology Australia and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering also welcomed the report's findings.

We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.