A major review of Australian Research Council (ARC) legislation has been released. 

Education Minister Jason Clare has unveiled a much-anticipated report examining how research is funded in the country; delving into the legislation underpinning the Australian Research Council (ARC).

The ARC has previously been the target of criticism over alleged political interference in its decisions and low success rates for academics applying for funding. 

The review, led by Margaret Sheil, Vice-Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology, contains ten recommendations aimed at enhancing the ARC's procedures, which include enhancing trust by the government and the research community. 

Some of the recommendations include clarifying the purpose of the ARC, providing more clarity and insight into the role and impact of the ARC, and providing more fellowships for Indigenous academics.

At the core of the review is a recommendation for a new ARC board of directors, appointed by the education minister, to run the ARC without political interference. 

This would eliminate the capacity of ministers to intervene in blocking funding to certain projects at the last minute, aiming to make the ARC more independent in both legislation and practice. 

In the past, the ARC was an autonomous non-government organisation; however, since its legislation was updated in 2001, its autonomy has declined, along with trust in its work. 

There have been ministerial interventions to veto grants in humanities and social science at least five times, the most recent being by former minister Stuart Robert in 2021. 

The review recommends that the ARC be given full power to make decisions over research grants, although there should be checks and balances, and the minister could still intervene in the extraordinary circumstance of a potential threat to national security. 

The board would have the responsibility of appointing the ARC's CEO, as well as the college of experts, who assess grant applications, and approve grant recommendations by the college.

One of the significant challenges that researchers face with the ARC process is the time it takes to apply for grants and the low rates of success. 

The review recommends a two-step process under a new model where researchers provide a brief outline of the research objective to the ARC. 

The ARC would assess it and make recommendations on whether a full, second-round application is warranted. This would alleviate the arduous and bureaucratic approach of the current model for researchers and university research branches. 

The review also recommends a change to the ARC's role in auditing research for quality, previously done through the Excellence in Research Australia process via university submissions. 

The review strongly opposes the existing metric-driven model, noting the evidence that metrics can be biassed or inherently flawed. 

Instead, the review proposes a new approach whereby the ARC cooperates with TEQSA, the university regulatory body, to develop a framework for research quality and impact.

While it makes several findings and recommendations about the purpose and procedures of the ARC, the review is silent about funding. 

The ARC funding currently does not meet the costs of universities in both infrastructure and staffing to service the ARC grant. Thus, universities mostly rely on overseas student fees to meet research costs, subject to fluctuations, leading to unpredictable ramifications for university budgets and staffing, as well as the quality of research. 

Although the review offers significant improvements, it leaves the fundamental question of whether the ARC will receive adequate funding for research in Australia unanswered. 

Kylie Walker - CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) - is calling on the government “to conduct a broader review of national research funding with an aim to bring total R&D funding to levels comparable with our international competitors, around 3 per cent of GDP”.

“The review also fails to address funding the full cost of research, relegating this to the concurrent Universities Accord process. This issue must not be allowed to fall through the gaps. We call on the Universities Accord panel to develop a plan for sufficiently funding the indirect costs of research,” she said. 

The report will be considered as part of broader discussions around the Universities Accord, and the federal government has promised to respond in due course.