Criticism Grows of Dr Nelson's Invocation of His "Star Chamber". (November 16, 2005)

    On Monday TFW reported that three of the nation's learned societies had criticised the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson for quashing some half-dozen grants that had been approved by the Australian Research Council's (ARC) College of Experts. Now Professor Glyn Davis, Vice-Chancellor of The University of Melbourne and Chair of the Group of Eight, has said that the Group of Eight share deep concerns about lack of  transparency in public funding for competitive research grants.

Professor Davis said, "Media reports suggest that Minister Nelson has overridden the peer review system to bring his own judgment to bear and delete certain recommended projects. If accurate, this would be a cause for alarm. It suggests that political criteria, rather than expert opinion and peer assessment, now shape Australia’s research and development."

Professor Davis continued, "If the Minister has decided to veto some projects, he should be prepared to justify that choice. After all, this is a decision about public money. Any personal intervention by the minister should be subject to administrative review like other government spending decisions. The researchers involved, and the broader public, are entitled to know the basis on which choices about their projects are being decided.

"In the absence of information, there is now a high level of confusion in the grant allocation mechanism. Are projects rejected because they don’t meet an acceptable professional standard or because they are politically unwelcome? Let us hope the Minister puts this controversy to rest by assuring the research community that no projects were vetoed after being recommended by the ARC. If that is not the case, then the Minister should list those projects deleted and explain the reasons for his choice. Secrecy is no basis for good government."

Concurrently, Stuart Macintyre, professor of history and dean of arts at The University of Melbourne has written a blistering opinion piece for The Age.

Prof. Stuart Macintyre

A number of those whose standing and proposals met all the expectations have nevertheless missed out. We don't know how many. We don't know why their grants were axed. The whole process is shrouded in the secrecy that we have come to expect of the present Government. But we do know that these researchers are victims of a form of political interference in the system of national competitive grants that is unique to this country.

 

In 2004 [the Minister] vetoed some grants in the humanities that had been approved by the ARC. There was no announcement that he had done so, and the victims were not informed.

 

[However,] [r]umours soon spread of this corruption of due process. The projects in question were apparently concerned with research into sexuality, a topic the minister apparently thought afforded him solid ground if challenged. The only vice-chancellor who, to my knowledge, condemned his extraordinary interference was Gavin Brown of Sydney.

 

[When Dr Nelson came to request] the ARC to establish a "Community Standards Committee" to vet the decisions of its expert panels [he was] [r]ebuffed by the board of the ARC, he then appointed some lay members to the committee of the ARC that oversees the panels. And for good measure he announced that the board of the ARC would no longer exist - it would be disbanded so he could dispense with such niceties [such as needing to get their agreement].

 

We don't know how many applicants fell victim to this Orwellian "quality and scrutiny committee". Rumour suggests about 20. The ARC then transmitted the survivors to the minister, who apparently found it necessary to make a further cull.

 

All of this is unconfirmed because the chief executive of the ARC, Peter Høj, has declined to comment.

 

A committee appointed by the minister, meeting in secret and applying mysterious criteria, is vetting academic applications. Those with applications rejected by the committee never find out what was wrong with their application or have an opportunity to argue their case. A minister who intrudes his own political ambitions into the country's research arrangements is unfortunate, but his exercise of power without accountability is unacceptable. The principles of administrative law should apply to research grants. Those making decisions are required to justify their decisions.

 

So for the present Australia stands alone in compromising its research arrangements to suit the prejudices of unelected and unaccountable appointees. And this from a Government that came to office with a pledge to combat political correctness!