Legislation to reform the Australian Research Council (ARC) has inched closer to enactment, with key crossbench politicians signalling their support and the government backing some of their amendments.

The Senate has agreed in principle to the?bill, which implements most recommendations from last year¡¯s?review of the ARC Act. They include establishing an ARC board and watering down ministerial discretion to veto ARC grant funding decisions.

But with the Liberal-led opposition considering this a dereliction of ministerial responsibility to supervise government spending, the Labor government needs support from the Greens and at least two other independent senators to secure the bill¡¯s assent.

In a series of votes on 18 March, the government accepted Greens proposals to modify the membership and functions of the ARC board. It agreed to former Greens senator Lidia Thorpe¡¯s amendment requiring researchers to declare potential conflicts of interest to help weed out ¡°dodgy industry-backed research¡±. And it greenlighted changes requested by crossbench senator David Pocock, including restrictions to the ¡°designated¡± grant schemes that will continue to require ministerial approval.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The government has rejected several other proposed changes, including a Greens amendment banning the vetoing of research grants on ¡°international relations¡± grounds. It says it will not support two other amendments that are yet to be put to the vote, including a Greens move to prevent parliament from?disallowing?grant guidelines.

Nevertheless, the Greens confirmed their support for the bill, as did Mr Pocock. ¡°It takes away a power too often misused for the minister to intervene and stop research grants [on] purely politically ideological grounds,¡± he told the Senate. ¡°This political interference erodes trust and has no place in the kind of future we want to build in this country.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

In earlier debate, Liberal senators defended the interventions and ridiculed 32 research projects known to have had their grants vetoed by former Liberal ministers. ¡°This is not the type of research which should be funded by the taxpayer,¡± said shadow education minister Sarah Henderson.

Western Australian senator Matt O¡¯Sullivan cited a project entitled ¡°Beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China¡¯s gender norms¡±, which?former education minister Simon Birmingham refused to fund in 2017, as an example of ¡°the absolute waste of taxpayers¡¯ dollars¡± that his party was trying to prevent.

¡°Thank goodness those projects were rejected,¡± he said. ¡°It couldn¡¯t be in the national interest to fund that sort of nonsense.¡±

New South Wales senator Hollie Hughes, the shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, focused on the same project. ¡°I¡¯m pretty sure President Xi wouldn¡¯t be too into that one,¡± she told the Senate. ¡°I¡¯m pretty sure those in the gallery aren¡¯t desperately searching for their wallet to chuck us down a fiver.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

She said another project denied funding by Mr Birmingham, ¡°A history of Australian men¡¯s dress 1870-1970¡±, had some merit ¡°as long as we don¡¯t go back to those long collars and fat ties. I think that just goes without saying ¨C but, really, it¡¯s not up to the taxpayer to decide these things.¡±

Ms Hughes warned that the ARC board would be stacked with the government¡¯s ¡°union mates¡± making ¡°crazy¡± decisions?such as funding research into how to ¡°expand union membership across every single industry. There¡¯ll be no responsibility on the minister because the minister [has] no oversight,¡± she said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com