Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:35:31 to 3:43:45
The hearing concludes with a debate over the justification for specific research grants and the transparency of the ARC's funding decisions.
Topics: Education, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Matt O'Sullivan, Speaker 24, Unknown Speaker, Speaker 2, Senator Paul Scarr, Anthony Murfett, Senator Jess Walsh
>> what I what I what I find unsatisfactory is not being able to come to Senate estimates and ask questions and have specific advice as to why a grant was uh awarded. Um what what's stopping uh this process from actually being able to interrogate uh the validity of a of a grant and have a grant justified back to the taxpayers through us as elected
>> because the experts have already assessed one. >> Yes. So I want to understand why the
experts agree to fund
>> homicidal corporations. And how many
Australia?
>> Well, that the expert determined that this was a valuable experiment or
>> Yes. And again, I'm trying to understand
>> there are experts on homicidal
>> You have to read the research to find out. [laughter] Senator,
>> yes, you have to read the whole proposal based on the title. You cannot define if this is valuable research. The [clears throat] whole proposal is probably So there's 10 pages which describe the project. there's another 20 or so pages on each of the CVs and track records of each of the uh investigators involved or partners involved. So the whole proposal is very very long and assessed by experts and they determine based on the four selection criteria which are investigator capability, project quality and innovation, benefit and feasibility.
>> Professor, professor you have abstracts for long academic papers, right? So just taking on Senator O Sullivan's point. Why can't you come along with the spreadsheet that's got each grant >> he asked a question about a grant. You click on the um you click on the on the on the project or whatever it is proposal and you can at least give us a one page par a one paragraph two sentence this is important because of X.
>> Yes. So we normally also only see the 100word summary. Um you know there is no capacity for us to read. Um,
>> so what why can't we have the benefit of that here?
>> You can see the 100 words summary that's public.
what is what's the justification for GA 589824?
>> Why can't you look it up now and read the 100 words?
>> I can read. So Senator maybe the way there's a couple of factors is
>> we're really interested in the homicidal
>> the website link to the senators if we
>> we can take some of this on notice on >> the last qu um described um where all the um outcomes are listed so you can read the 100 word summary and 150 words
>> that's a summary of the of the project which is you know I've read one of them >> uh so I do I've got the link already thanks chair >> um But but like I'm trying to understand like there's got to be a justification for that the board has made for Gwarding it, right? Or you're saying that the experts I get that so they've they've made a determin there's plenty that they're rejecting, right? I mean they get probably a lot more applications than what they're able to. So the board
trusts the process in order to make the final funding decision which are recommendation by the selection advisory committee those college of experts who um spend a week in our offices to discuss each of those applications >> and who are they >> which one would be funded and which fun >> who are they accountable to.
understands what you're what you're raising S and I think going forward trying to really articulate the value of the investment that is there but the premise of the peer review process and this is this is around the world this is not just Australia this is all the funding agencies that invest in um basic and early stage research is that we rely on the the expertise of the academic community in those disciplines to advise boards or decision makers on why that is a worthy investment. what we're doing under the new NCGp is to improve that so we can articulate that in our
>> and then and then ultimately last question then ultimately the the the the final sort of check of accountability you like is this process here >> right it's a significant sum of money and and and our job is to is to hold it to account I've got a I got a constituent in Western Australia that sends me these things all the time right why are we funding this why are we funding so they're expecting me to come in here and ask these sort of questions about why are we funding a study of homicidal corporations, right?
>> So maybe an example, Richard Robson who just got the Nobel Prize last year. >> In 1987, he got the first grant from our predecessor. It would not be funded today because it was so blue sky and who would care about models of chemistry molecules?
>> No, no, no, no, no. There's no no I a little bit different from a homicidal corporation but what's only different
and this is the point I want to make sure my interest sorry for detaining us but my interest here is so that we can fund more of that so we can fund more Wi-Fi projects so that we can fund more cockular and all the things we need
a question and answer session
>> copy life words in a clim extend to the
trolley if anyone would like a cup.
>> Thank you. Thank you for us.
>> Thank you. Um so at this point we're going to move to my closing statement. Um today we that concludes today's hearing. That's the >> um thank you to all of our witnesses who have appeared before us today. um to Hansard and Broadcasting for their assistance and of course the wonderful support we get from our secretariat and I believe the secretariates who've ced it in to help us um over the last couple of days. Thank you too. I remind senators that the committee has agreed that any written questions or notice should be lodged with the secretariat by Thursday the 5th of November 2026. The committee stands.
>> Well done chair. Thank you.