Research reforms ‘bigger than one budget’, lobbyists warn

Australian lobbyists have borrowed a phrase from education minister Jason Clare’s copybook, as they wait to see whether this year’s federal budget includes cash to fund the outcomes from a landmark review of research.

The final report from the Strategic Examination of Research and Development (Serd) is understood to have been handed to science minister Tim Ayres before Christmas, but Australians are yet to lay eyes on the report or – more crucially – the government’s response.

The slow progress is fuelling anxiety about whether the Labor administration will make decisions in time to bankroll any changes to research funding, in a budget likely to be handed down on 12 May.

The Australian Academy of Science, which said the Serd offered a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for a new R&D “blueprint”, listed implementation of the review’s proposals as the top recommendation in its pre-budget submission.

“Reversing more than 10 years of decline will take multiple budgets, but it must start with this one,” said academy president Chennupati Jagadish.

The message was repeated by the Group of Eight (Go8), which also topped its pre-budget submission with a demand to fund the Serd recommendations. “It will take more than one budget cycle to fix the system,” the submission notes.

The observation echoes an oft-repeated phrase from Clare, who has frequently insisted that the Australian Universities Accord reforms are “bigger than one budget”.

Pre-budget submissions from Science and Technology Australia (STA) and the Australian Technology Network likewise pressed the government to accept the Serd proposals. “Australia can no longer afford to keep kicking the can down the road,” STA’s submission says. “Critical processes…to secure Australia’s R&D capability appear to be suffering from a lack of government engagement and ambition.”

Sources say planning for each budget begins over six months in advance, and major funding decisions are already likely to be locked in. If the government has not made provision to implement the Serd recommendations, pre-budget submissions – largely internal communications exercises aimed at reassuring members rather than influencing policy – will make little difference.

However, lobbyists feel compelled to lodge pre-budget submissions so that the government cannot blame representative groups for failing to raise important reform ideas.

The submissions can also include suggestions that strengthen ministers’ arguments during last-minute budget wrangling with cabinet colleagues – especially if they are inexpensive proposals that can absorb pockets of spare cash left over from departmental underspends.

Recommendations in this year’s submissions from higher education and research lobbyists range from pricey ideas – such as boosting PhD stipends, introducing a new infrastructure fund and scrapping the most expensive band of tuition fees – to cheaper proposals like realigning trade officials’ activities to support universities’ outreach in the Indo-Pacific.

Several submissions recommend a one-off investment to associate with the world’s largest collaborative research scheme, Horizon Europe, before it doubles its already considerable budget. Universities Australia’s submission says collaborative schemes like Aukus “offer opportunities” but risk “over-concentration on a limited set of partners”.

The government is considered likely to respond to the Serd report soon, possibly funding some of its proposals in the forthcoming budget. Labor took a similar approach with the Universities Accord, releasing the report in February 2024 and funding some accord recommendations the following May.

However, insiders have low expectations that the Serd – which has focused largely on commercial R&D – will bring about major changes to basic research funding.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com