|
senate vote 2024-03-18#14
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-03-28 14:42:43
|
Title
Bills — Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023; in Committee- Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Removing international relations veto
Description
<p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2439 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-18.116.1) 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=2024-03-18.116.1):
- > *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.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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".*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), at the end of subsection 12(4), add:</p><p class="italic">Note: The appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), after section 12, insert:</p><p class="italic">12A Appointment process</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies to the following appointments:</p><p class="italic">(a) the appointment of a person to be a Board member under section 12;</p><p class="italic">(b) the appointment of a person to act as a Board member under section 14 if:</p><p class="italic">(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(2) An appointment must not be made unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:</p><p class="italic">(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members; and</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p class="italic">(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.</p><p class="italic">(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:</p><p class="italic">(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if a House is not sitting—presented or tabled at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the practices of that House.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (before line 25), before the note, insert:</p><p class="italic">Note 1: For the appointment of an acting Board member, the appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (line 25), omit "Note", substitute "Note 2".</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>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.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>I move amendment (1) on sheet 2437:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 25 (after line 19), after paragraph 49(2)(e), insert:</p><p class="italic">(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</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>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.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>by leave—I move the Australian Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 2394 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (line 1), omit "<i>, defence or international relations</i>", substitute "<i>or defence</i>".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (lines 3 and 4), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (line 17), omit "<i>, defence or international relations</i>", substitute "<i>or defence</i>".</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (lines 20 and 21), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 27 and 28), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 31 and 32), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 33 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence".</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">David Fawcett</p><p>The question is that Australian Greens amendments 1 to 9 on sheet 2394 be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|