How this government is destroying the bright ARC of our future

The kinds of people who apply are looking for cures for COVID, climate change and our corrupted democracy. There isn't much money to go around because this federal government doesn't believe in supporting thinkers. It believes in supporting business. Because of the shortage of funding, not too many succeed in getting grants. I have a friend who applied three times. Third time lucky. She's doing exactly the kind of research I would have liked to do if universities were better places to work. One of the reasons they aren't better employers is because this government does not care about education in the way that parents and students care about education.

Anyhow, this government's stone-cold ignorance was itself written in stone this week when the Minister N+1 of education, Stuart Robert (acting because Tudge had to step aside - the choreography from past and present ministers continues to depress) put out a press release which said that the ARC would take on a new direction. Then comes this horrific sentence: "The Morrison government will work with the ARC to support a stronger governance structure so it can continue to respond to the challenges of aligning research programs to national priorities and the opportunities arising from the government's research reform agenda."

Stuart Robert looks like he's out for a bit of head-kicking not up for repairing our nation. Here's the bit which should really worry us all. "The ARC will also strengthen the National Interest Test by enhancing industry and other end-users' involvement and improve transparency in the grants process." Oh, how I laughed. A National (Government Self) Interest Test.

Jane Hall, president of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and a staggeringly glorious health economist (my god, we've needed them) says we already have a system in Australia that is rigorous. We get actual experts to wield their expertise.

"The idea that you can bring in industry and end users as part of the ARC College of Experts dilutes the expertise in terms of research," says Hall. "That doesn't mean end users don't have a role in some direction of funding but you can't always see where research leads you. You need to take a long-term view not just a short-term view."

These changes come after the worst 12 months in the ARC's history. Rules were changed midway for grants (and then it had to backflip on this decision because it was blatantly unfair). Grant applications in limbo for months and now holding a national record for lateness, impacting researchers trying to improve our lives. Hall says so many Australian researchers are motivated by doing social good, making a better health system. "If you insist that it is to be commercialised it may cost the motivation that drives so many of our researchers."

Plus the dragging out of the application process makes it hard for research to be timely. No business in the world would wait as long as the ARC takes to make decisions. You can't expect business to co-fund research where they don't know when the ARC will make a decision. It is hard to get an industry partner to work with researchers because there is no certainty.

And then we had a chief executive officer who appeared to have regrets but too few to mention. You can see the horror unravel through the timeline of one Twitter account who knows so much about ARC I sometimes wonder if it works there, ARC Tracker.

Last week, I sent the ARC 20 questions. Among other concerns, I asked how the ARC thought the academic labour force was dealing with the institution's incompetence (I was more polite, trust me). I also asked about funding (in hot decline since the Coalition took over). I asked for an interview with the CEO. A few days later, a message from Stakeholder Relations appeared which said it hoped the press release would answer my questions. If only. Jargon followed by obfuscation and no real coming to terms with any of the challenges for the university sector, for the research sector, where we hope the answer to climate change will emerge.

Reading the press release generated three responses in me.

First, hard-pressed to see how this bumbling rorty government could support a stronger governance structure, unless it is about supporting more rorting. Second, research programs should not be about alignment to national priorities but about grey-sky thinking - how we fix our future. This government has proven it can barely manage today let alone tomorrow. Third, what the hell is the government's research reform agenda beyond trying to get itself re-elected?

And on top of all these weaselly words, the press release goes on to say: "The ARC will align its Linkage programs with the government's research commercialisation agenda. For future rounds, the ARC will recommend 70 per cent of its applied research grants fall under the six National Manufacturing Priorities."

Let me translate. The government wants taxpayer money (from the ARC) to support the work of business and to assist business in making more money. They want research to be commercialised. And now they are going to involve industry and other end users to improve transparency in the grants process.

Now it is true that some businesses are working to fix our future - but not all do. Most are just worried about making stuff and selling stuff for the benefit of shareholders. That's pretty much our government, too. It doesn't have a vision, it is locked in the here and now and mostly that's about trying to stay in power.

The ARC does need an overhaul and now Sue Thomas, its CEO, is leaving, it will get one - but for whose benefit? For the business connections of this government or for the benefit of all of us.