Sheil Review calls for limits on minister’s powers over research grants

A review of the federal government’s research funding agency calls for strict limits on ministerial powers to veto research grants.

Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil, who led the review of the Australian Research Council. Picture: Russell Shakespeare

Universities have welcomed the findings of a review of the federal government’s research funding agency that says it should be more independent and that ministers should be forbidden to intervene in most funding decisions.

The review of the Australian Research Council, released on Thursday by Education Minister Jason Clare, follows years of controversy over decisions made by four different Coalition education ministers to use veto powers on ARC funding recommendations.

The review’s report, titled Trusting Australia’s Ability, said the ministers’ “arbitrary interventions have been a widespread source of despair (for researchers), particularly acute in the humanities in which the majority of cancelled projects were focused”.

Former education ministers Brendan Nelson, Simon Birmingham, Dan Tehan and Stuart Robert all overturned grant recom­mendations made by the ARC.

The review – carried out by Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil, La Trobe University senior deputy vice-chancellor Susan Dodds, and University of Adelaide professor of biomedicine Mark Hutchinson – also recommended a board should be appointed to govern the ARC, instead of it directly reporting to the education minister.

It said the board should ultimately be responsible for approving grants instead of the minister, but the education minister would retain power to veto research grants if there were national security concerns, although such interventions must be reported to parliament.

Australian Academy of Science president Chennupati Jagadish welcomed the call for an ARC board “with the right combination of skills and experience” to have final responsibility for grant approvals.

This would put the decisions “in the hands of people with the expertise to assess their merit,” he said.

The Sheil review backed streamlined procedures for grant applications and determination used by the ARC, and to find ways to assess the quality and impact of ­research.

Universities Australia chief executive Catriona Jackson backed the review’s recommendations, saying a strong, independent ARC was central to having a world-leading research system.

“Past interventions have eroded confidence in our research program and our reputation for research excellence. We have an opportunity now to right those wrongs,” she said.

The Group of Eight universities, which receive the majority of ARC grants, said the review’s recommendations were a vital first step to ensure the agency was fit for purpose.

CEO Vicki Thomson said the lack of information from ministers on the reasons for vetoing grants “had created a perception of the potential for bias or political interference”.

Innovative Research Universities executive director Paul Harris, whose group represents seven mid-ranked universities, said the review had struck the right balance between the need for more independence for the ARC and its ultimate responsibility to the government and the parliament.

The Australian Technology Network, which represents the technology universities, said the ARC must be able to do its job with the confidence and support of the university sector.

“If adopted, the recommendations of the Sheil Review will go a long way to achieving this,” said ATN executive director Luke Sheehy.

Mr Clare said the government would consider the review’s findings “and respond in due course”.