policy & reform
campusreview.com.au
when they chose to highlight the titles
of the projects – and even then they
misquoted the titles – they didn’t put the
context at all in any way and they failed to
understand the detail of the projects and
how important they were.
So, projects, for instance, that went
to the issues of cultural change, like the
importance of music in adapting to the
closure of the [Holden] plant at Elizabeth,
became victims of this approach. Projects
that went to climate change and the impact
on sport, [and] the use of water at the
MCG, became victims of this. In regard to
the one that they’ve used most publicly,
where they misquote the title entirely – the
title is Double Crossings: Post-Orientalist
Arts at the Strait of Gibraltar – it is actually
an art history project about the interface
between the African and European
Christian and Muslim cultures, the impact
of people smuggling and contraband, and
border crossings. These are internationally
renowned art historians.
These are projects that would, under
any circumstances, be regarded as being
of great value to the country, particularly
given the circumstances where humanities
projects have become increasingly
difficult to secure and the success rates
have fallen away in many areas from, for
instance, 30 per cent down to 11 per cent
in some cases.
Now, there were other rejections in
regard to the future fellowships. It is
unprecedented to knock these back.
Knocking back the Early Career Researcher
Awards is unprecedented behaviour. So
there are many areas in which you could be
deeply concerned, and hence the outrage
right across the research community,
across all academies. Whether they be in
the humanities, social sciences, technology
or the general sciences, they have all said
the same thing: this is to be resisted very
strongly by the entire research community.
You’ve mentioned before that this can have
effects that are broader than just those that
pertain to grants. Can you explain what you
mean by this?
Clearly what the government’s now trying
to do is present this as a matter that the
public will reject. First of all, I don’t believe
that Australians are that hostile to new
knowledge, but more importantly it’s an
attitude that suggests this sort of philistinism
is going to be rewarded politically, and I
can’t see how that works either.
It strikes me that the Liberals have
frankly stopped listening, and they fail to
understand that Australians understand the
importance of constant investment in new
knowledge and how important inquiry is to
the economic and social development of
the country.
Internationally, we simply can’t afford
to allow the country to be presented
as a backwater in which these types of
intellectual pursuits are not valued. This
is a serious issue for the future of the
spread of prosperity and the creation
of new knowledge and new economic
opportunities. It goes beyond whether this
is a level of cretinism that goes to some sort
of base political grandstanding for some of
the knuckle-draggers within the Coalition at
the moment.
A form of these powers were last used by
Brendan Nelson in 2005, and in the interim
there was a Labour government. Do you
know why they didn’t act to change the
legislation in this respect?
Well, I didn’t think it was necessary because
I thought there had been a commitment
established in regard to the protocol.
I was the minister that introduced the new
protocols which said that if a minister was
going to reject the expert advice, they had
to declare that and explain why.
Now, clearly we need to do more next
time to reinstate those protocols. They
were repudiated when this government
came to office, and of course this is the first
time we revealed that this had happened.
At the Senate Estimates, I was able to
secure this information.
We know that the convention had been
established, put in place, and so it hadn’t
happened before Mr Birmingham acted.
Mr Birmingham [did] this last year and
this year. Clearly we need to re-establish
that convention, and obviously I’ll need
to take that further the next time the ARC
acts. It’s actually up for amendment in
the parliament.
Do you think there is a place for the veto at
all, even if it comes with an explanation?
There is a question about whether or
not the ARC is able to always get it
right. I mean, I acknowledge that it’s
possible they will get it wrong.
I’ve seen the discussion that we had
about the [Centre of Excellence for Coral
Reef Studies]. I believe there’s been an
instruction issued at some level to shape
the shortlisting. Now, that Centre of
Excellence has international renown. It’s
the best in the world but can’t get on the
shortlist. I’m thoroughly dissatisfied with
that. How is it possible that the strongest
concentration of reef scientists in the
world can’t get on the shortlist for a
Centre of Excellence?
I’ve seen the review assessment. It is
outstanding, and the statements there
show that this should be funded at
all costs.
Now, there was only one review
sought. Normally there are three or
four. No interviews were sought for any
of the applicants. When I look through
the list of applicants, I genuinely have
to question how it is that this Centre of
Excellence can’t make the shortlist.
So I do acknowledge the principle
that the ARC doesn’t necessarily
get it right on every occasion, but
equally, if we’re going to change
a recommendation or challenge a
recommendation, you have to explain
why. That’s the fundamental principle.
If your minister wishes to intervene,
they should explain why.
Is there anything further you would like
to say?
It’s important to appreciate the affect
this has on the individual scholars.
Not enough attention is being paid
to the damage that this does to
individual careers and the cavalier way
Internationally, we simply
can’t afford to allow the
country to be presented as a
backwater in which these types
of intellectual pursuits are not
valued. This is a serious issue...
in which this government has treated
the universities and the individuals
concerned in this regard.
I’m particularly concerned at the
attempt to denigrate and humiliate
researchers, and the government’s
desperate attempt to justify this crass
appeal to philistinism. I will be doing
everything I can to defend the integrity
of the researchers in this round that I
have before me. ■
13