policy & reform
campusreview.com.au
Simon Birmingham at the 2018 ASEAN conference. Photo: Mick Tsikas. Source: AAP
The current education minister, Dan
Tehan, has declared that he intends to
announce such veto decisions in future,
but will not offer explanations for them.
He also proposed grants must meet a
‘national interest test’ before being awarded
– a criterion that already exists in ARC
applications.
The next round of ARC grants are due to
be announced shortly.
Campus Review spoke with Carr to find
out more about his views on the matter.
Behind Birmo’s veto
Did Simon Birmingham veto grants
to avoid being the next Turnbull?
Kim Carr interviewed by Loren Smith
B
y now, you well know that the former
education minster’s use of an arcane
piece of legislation has caused furore
among academics. Simon Birmingham’s
unannounced, unexplained veto of several
research grants, all confined to humanities
researchers, has raised doubts about the
government’s powers and agenda.
A key sceptic in this respect is the shadow
minster for innovation, industry, science and
research, Kim Carr. He thinks Birmingham,
in making this decision, did so to kowtow to
the far right of the Liberal party – the same
faction that overthrew Malcolm Turnbull
over his climate change policy.
“[Birmingham’s decision] suggests
philistinism is rewarded politically,” he told
Campus Review.
“Internationally, we can’t afford to have
Australia presented as a backwater.”
12
He added that the way the original
grantees were treated was despicable, and
that their careers have been destroyed.
In his view, the government, in a cavalier
way, “attempted to denigrate and
humiliate them”.
What makes matters even worse, Carr
says, is that arts funding is already in crisis
– down from around a third to 11 per cent
of the academic total. Yet, his biggest
gripe is that Birmingham wouldn’t officially
explain himself.
This is unprecedented. The former
minister has interfered with Australia’s
peer review system. Is it because he
did not like the topics, the academics?
There has been no public disclosure.
@Birmo owes Australian researchers
an explanation.
— Kim Carr (@SenKimCarr)
25 October 2018
I‘m pretty sure most Australian
taxpayers preferred their funding to be
used for research other than spending
$223,000 on projects like “Post
orientalist arts of the Strait of Gibraltar.”
Do you disagree, @SenKimCarr? Would
Labor simply say yes to anything?
https://t.co/QTiEH0rXoZ
— Simon Birmingham (@Birmo)
25 October 2018
Carr is no ARC apologist, however, stating
that the council “doesn’t always get it right”.
CR: What is your biggest issue with Simon
Birmingham’s decision to do this? Is it the
fact that he used the veto, is it the subjects
he applied it to, or is it the fact that he didn’t
explain his decision?
KC: It’s all of those things. What we’re
seeing here is a return to some dreadful
experiences that we had in the period
of 2005, when [then-education minister
Brendan Nelson] undertook a similar
practice. It would appear that the Liberal
Party have stopped listening; they’ve failed
to learn from 10 years ago. They fail to
understand the Australia that has developed
all around them.
This is a very serious development,
because the topics they’ve chosen to
ostracise in this way are clearly matters
that they thought they could [use to] seek
political advantage within the Liberal Party
and the National Party. This was all done
in secret. It was part of a push within the
Coalition at a time when the government
was moving to the right. It reflects, I think,
a deep prejudice about the importance of
the arts and the humanities, or music, and
the fundamentals of what we would call
civilised society.
This is at the same time as they’re
haranguing universities about the Ramsay
Centre and what they see as the failure
to embrace Western civilisation, or their
version of it. Well, they’re fundamentally
attacking these often world-leading
scholars in areas of great importance to the
future of the country.
We saw it in times gone by around
climate change. Then, it was about
questions on the humanities, and especially
around questions on sexuality. Now, we see
it’s in a broad spectrum of issues.
It was also the fact that they failed to
explain anything as to why they were doing
it. And then when they were exposed,
they went back to the old technique of
vilification of the individuals. Of course,