Speaker 1: Ricauld was talking to a friend recently. He told me
Speaker 1: they've been sent a questionnaire by the US government. This
Speaker 1: is something you've been looking into. Can you tell me
Speaker 1: about these questionnaires?
Speaker 2: Their mind boddeling, really, Daniel I was looking at I
Speaker 2: think it's the same one that's been sent to every researcher.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen any different one yet, but it's thirty
Speaker 2: six questions.
Speaker 1: Rick Morton is a senior reporter at the Saturday Paper.
Speaker 1: In recent weeks, researchers across the country started receiving a
Speaker 1: questionnaire sent by the US government.
Speaker 2: And it is this kind of childlike, kind of primary
Speaker 2: school level questionnaire about whether researchers are working on US
Speaker 2: funded projects or co funded projects in Australia that have
Speaker 2: an anti American agenda. For example. You know, one of
Speaker 2: the questions, just for Batim to read it to you
Speaker 2: is can you confirm that this is no DEI that's diversity,
Speaker 2: equity and Inclusion project or DEI elements of the project?
Speaker 2: It doesn't even make sense. Drammatically they say, can you
Speaker 2: confirm this is not a climate or environmental justice project
Speaker 2: or include such elements? You know, it says does this
Speaker 2: project directly contribute to limiting illegal immigrational strengthening US Board
Speaker 2: of Security, and it goes on and on and on
Speaker 2: the questions.
Speaker 1: We're designed to find out whether Australian research co funded
Speaker 1: by the United States was complying with Donald Trump's prompts
Speaker 1: to cut funding from projects that support a woke agenda.
Speaker 1: The move has been labeled as fier interference and raises
Speaker 1: questions about the independence and sustainability of Australian research. From
Speaker 1: Schwartz Media, I'm Daniel James. This is seven am today
Speaker 1: seeing a reporter for the Saturday paper, Rick Morton, and
Speaker 1: why Australian research needs a new backer and what the
Speaker 1: government should be doing about it. It's Monday, March thirty one.
Speaker 1: So Rick, the z are ridiculous, but what is the
Speaker 1: point of them.
Speaker 2: It's essentially designed to be a test as to whether
Speaker 2: the Trump administration should keep funding these things. But they're
Speaker 2: doing it in that kind of far right agenda that
Speaker 2: Trump has been blitzing through in the first kind of
Speaker 2: a few months of his presidency.
Speaker 3: And our country will be work no longer.
Speaker 2: It demands all this information about whether you know the
Speaker 2: project can reinforce US sovereignty and limit reliance on the
Speaker 2: things that the Trump administration has professed to hate and
Speaker 2: have defunded in its own right, such as American participation
Speaker 2: in the United Nations the World Health Organization. The World
Speaker 2: Health Organization has become nothing more than a corrupt globilist
Speaker 2: scam paid for. These surveys are very serious, The threat
Speaker 2: is very real, and funding has been cut and suspended
Speaker 2: to Australian researchers and Australian institutions already.
Speaker 1: Right, So these questions, they're all yes no questions, aren't they.
Speaker 2: And that's the funny thing about it, right, they're yes
Speaker 2: no questions, but they're clearly I'm to make someone's job
Speaker 2: a lot easier back head office. So the yes no
Speaker 2: questions are meant to be scored either one or five
Speaker 2: for the first I think eleven questions, and then for
Speaker 2: every question after that has to be scored on a
Speaker 2: scale of one two five, So you know, very strong yes,
Speaker 2: very strong no. And essentially they don't explain this in
Speaker 2: the document per se, but it seems to me that
Speaker 2: they're tabulating these scores and using that to feed into
Speaker 2: a machine and go right. This program is a very
Speaker 2: low scoring program in terms of our agenda, get rid
Speaker 2: of it. And there has been no rhyme or reason
Speaker 2: to the suspensions and funding cuts that we've had so far.
Speaker 1: So yeah, may contain traces of DEI and that might
Speaker 1: be enough. And other than mine, mate, who exactly has
Speaker 1: been receiving these question is how widespread has it been?
Speaker 2: So I mean that I've been trying to get my
Speaker 2: head around this. Obviously it's my job to tell you,
Speaker 2: and I can't tell you exactly because I mean, I
Speaker 2: think people will be really freaked out by it. So
Speaker 2: the one thing I did get a sense of from
Speaker 2: people who are in the know is that there is
Speaker 2: no thematic consistency to this. So the programs are across
Speaker 2: social sciences, are across science, they're across political science. But
Speaker 2: what we do know is that of the eight most
Speaker 2: research intensive universities in Australia, that's the group of eight,
Speaker 2: six of them have had funding suspended or cut completely.
Speaker 3: The AU is the latest major Australian university set to
Speaker 3: lose US funding as the Trump administration orders institutions to justify.
Speaker 2: We know, for example, that the Australian National University Vice
Speaker 2: Chancellor Genevieve Bell confirmed to her own staff that they
Speaker 2: had received the questions and have already had money pulled.
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly what program that's from, but we
Speaker 2: know that it's happening carte blanche, and we know of
Speaker 2: course that it's not just university it's the CSIO, the
Speaker 2: Commonwealth Science Agency, has had researchers be told to pony
Speaker 2: up information about what they're working on or risk having
Speaker 2: their funding cut.
Speaker 1: So what are the universities said to you about how
Speaker 1: big of a deal it is to lose this American funding.
Speaker 2: So the US is our largest research funder, our largest
Speaker 2: and up until now one of our most stable research
Speaker 2: partners in the world. It accounts for nearly four hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars in funding in the Australian research landscape, not
Speaker 2: including medical research funding. It's just at universities. It doesn't
Speaker 2: include CSIRO or all the other kind of non university projects.
Speaker 2: So it's an enormous amount of money and so the
Speaker 2: universities are extremely upset. I was talking to Alison Barnes,
Speaker 2: who's the president of the National Terchary Educating Union. She
Speaker 2: called it what it was put out of statement saying
Speaker 2: this is blatant foreign interference. Which I might add has
Speaker 2: made her the target of the elon musk Goon squad
Speaker 2: on X because I was tagged in a tweet that
Speaker 2: she put out, and I've just seen the responses from
Speaker 2: people going, ha ha ha. You know you now need
Speaker 2: to stand on your own two feet, you hangers on,
Speaker 2: fund your own red search like it's become this culture
Speaker 2: war subject. And of course her calling it what it
Speaker 2: is has made her one of the targets of those attacks.
Speaker 2: But you know, we have put a lot of our
Speaker 2: eggs in the United States research basket. Now the US
Speaker 2: has told us to get bent, and that's a huge
Speaker 2: problem because we've kind of been ignoring some of the
Speaker 2: other major research funders that we could have had and
Speaker 2: that we sort of have around the world. The biggest one,
Speaker 2: of course, is the European Union, who has been begging us,
Speaker 2: begging Australia basically for the last you know, almost a
Speaker 2: decade now, to join the largest research fund in the world,
Speaker 2: Horizon Europe, which Australia officially walked away from. We didn't
Speaker 2: even enter the negotiations to join. We just wrote to
Speaker 2: them and said yeah, thanks, but no thanks, see you later.
Speaker 1: So why did the government walk away from Horizon Europe.
Speaker 1: That's after the break.
Speaker 4: Hi Ruby Jones here seven Am tell stories need to
Speaker 4: be told. Our journalism is founded on trust and independence
Speaker 4: and now we're increasing our coverage. Every Saturday until the election,
Speaker 4: will bring you an extra episode to break down the
Speaker 4: biggest political moments of the week. If you enjoy seven Am,
Speaker 4: the best way you can support us is by making
Speaker 4: a contribution at seven am podcast dot com dot are
Speaker 4: you ford slash support. Thanks for listening and supporting our work.
Speaker 1: So, Rick, let's talk about this European Research Fund. What
Speaker 1: is it? What was the rationale behind Australia turning down
Speaker 1: being part of it?
Speaker 2: So Horizon Europe it's huge. It's one hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: three billion dollars in Australian dollars of research and some
Speaker 2: of the brightest minds in the world.
Speaker 3: Horizon Europe is open to the world. All types of
Speaker 3: organizations across Europe and beyond focusing on cutting edge research
Speaker 3: and innovation are eligible to participate.
Speaker 2: For the first time ever, the European Union opened up
Speaker 2: potential membership of its research collaborations in this through this
Speaker 2: fund to what they call associate countries. And so you
Speaker 2: can get associate status. Now, the European Union wouldn't say
Speaker 2: how much it would cost to join. But what they
Speaker 2: wanted to say before you they had that conversation was
Speaker 2: they wanted a country, for example Australia to sign a
Speaker 2: letter of intent. There was no cost to signing the
Speaker 2: letter of intent. All it said was, you know, we
Speaker 2: agree to enter negotiations to have the discussion about potentially
Speaker 2: joining Horizon Europe. There's no money involved. But once we
Speaker 2: signed that letter of intent, we can have a discussion
Speaker 2: that tells us, you know, what we might have to pay.
Speaker 2: We didn't even have the conversation. So Ed Husick is
Speaker 2: the Minister for Industry and Science and his department in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty twenty three just wrote to the EU and said, yeah, no,
Speaker 2: we're not interested. Thanks but no thanks.
Speaker 1: So what is the government said about the decision to
Speaker 1: continually walk away from Horizon Europe? And what do they
Speaker 1: think about a bizarre questionnaire from yours officials?
Speaker 2: That great question, Daniel, I would love to know what
Speaker 2: they think. I put questions into the Industry and Science
Speaker 2: Minister Ed Musick on Tuesday at lunchtime and his office
Speaker 2: got back to me and said we'll endeavor to get
Speaker 2: something to you shortly by your deadline, which was Wednesday afternoon.
Speaker 2: Thursday morning, I'm writing my story. I email them again
Speaker 2: and say, hey, I'm writing. If you want to respond
Speaker 2: to the questions about Horizon Europe, please do nothing, absolutely nothing.
Speaker 2: I mentioned that to someone I was talking to you,
Speaker 2: and they said, yeah, they wouldn't respond because they don't
Speaker 2: have an answer. They don't have a good answer for
Speaker 2: why they haven't done this. It doesn't cost money to
Speaker 2: have the discussion. Hand that he Albin Ezi was asked
Speaker 2: directly at a press conference on the Monday last week
Speaker 2: about the Trump interference and the fact that the Australian
Speaker 2: Academy of Science was calling explicitly for an emergency response
Speaker 2: because this was an emergency situation, and he literally said,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm the Australian Prime Ministry and I'm focused
Speaker 2: on what's happening here, as if research isn't happening here
Speaker 2: at all, and as if Trump interference isn't happening here.
Speaker 2: When that's what he was asked about, he says, I'm
Speaker 2: focused on, you know, for example, tomorrow night's budget and
Speaker 2: then get this. He was asked literally the next question
Speaker 2: he was asked. The very next question was about the Rabbit,
Speaker 2: O's mascot in the NRL, allegedly pushing a nine year
Speaker 2: old child, and Anthony Alberinezi, Prime Minister for Australia, who's
Speaker 2: focused on the big issues, spent more than a minute
Speaker 2: coming to the defense of Reggie the Rabbit, when you
Speaker 2: know he doesn't even want to talk about Trump's interference
Speaker 2: in Australian research. Am I living in that upside down world?
Speaker 2: And of course you know, I know that the universities
Speaker 2: and other groups were given briefings by the Department of
Speaker 2: Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Education about
Speaker 2: the Trump interference in our research output here, and the
Speaker 2: government said, we don't really know how to respond. This
Speaker 2: is in the briefing, so they said, your best to
Speaker 2: figure out how you should respond, but it's probably best
Speaker 2: to respond to the survey, the questionnaire. Now that's not
Speaker 2: what other countries are doing. I've been told that Germany,
Speaker 2: the United Kingdom, Canada, the EU they are deliberately not
Speaker 2: responding to what amounts as a shakedown by the Trump
Speaker 2: administration because what good can come from it. You either
Speaker 2: answer the questions honestly, and you break Australian law because
Speaker 2: that is foreign interference, or you lie to give the
Speaker 2: Trump administration what they want. There doesn't seem to be
Speaker 2: And that's what's been put to me by people who
Speaker 2: are begging for this, a coordinated national response to a
Speaker 2: the interference from the Trump administration, but b into having
Speaker 2: a coherent research and development strategy nationwide that accounts for
Speaker 2: the fact that we need stable and reliable partners in research.
Speaker 2: We don't have it in the US, which is our
Speaker 2: biggest research partner, and one begins to wonder why also
Speaker 2: hard to even say the right thing to learn actually
Speaker 2: putting anything in the budget about it.
Speaker 1: So rick, we know these cuts from the US are
Speaker 1: coming off the back of a number of challenging calls
Speaker 1: for university in recent years. We've had government's decisions to
Speaker 1: cap international student numbers, which is of course a big
Speaker 1: revenue source. We've had coalition cuts to high education, which
Speaker 1: has also affected research. So you've painted a pretty bleak
Speaker 1: picture so far. So what's the end result of all
Speaker 1: of that. I'm the bleak picture guy. That's my whole
Speaker 1: round these days. I wish I had a littly better
Speaker 1: to tell you, I really do, because I like to
Speaker 1: have fun. But you know, universities are on their knees.
Speaker 1: A lot of it is self inflicted, a lot of
Speaker 1: it is inflicted by successive Commonwealth government policies. And at
Speaker 1: the core of this is the fact that universities are
Speaker 1: no longer public knowledge institutions in the way that you
Speaker 1: and I have been led to believe they should be.
Speaker 2: And research is a huge part of that. And it
Speaker 2: doesn't make any sense for a smart country like Australia,
Speaker 2: which even if you don't want to have a discussion
Speaker 2: about public knowledge for public goods, which is kind of
Speaker 2: how I come at it, If the only metric you
Speaker 2: care about is productivity leading to more gains for the
Speaker 2: same level of input, research and development is an incredibly
Speaker 2: important input into productivity gains. If you're not making yourself
Speaker 2: smarter at the nation, you are not advancing, you are
Speaker 2: not getting efficient gains. The economy suffers, people suffer. That's
Speaker 2: what this is about. I mean, the idea that an
Speaker 2: Australian Prime minister doesn't even want to comment about foreign
Speaker 2: interference in our research output is galling because it basically
Speaker 2: says that's not a national issue.
Speaker 1: Rick, Thanks so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thanks Dan, always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, supermarkets will face heavy fines
Speaker 1: if they are court price gouging, the Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 1: Alberzi has announced. Alberzi said the A Triple C, Treasury
Speaker 1: and consumer groups would form a task force to investigate
Speaker 1: instances of price gouging and would introduce legislation to make
Speaker 1: it illegal. The A Triple C handed down a report
Speaker 1: focused on supermarkets earlier this month, following years of hearings.
Speaker 1: The report did not find that grocery prices were excessive
Speaker 1: or that Coles and Wilworth had a due Opotly, a
Speaker 1: majority government is within reach for the Labor Party at
Speaker 1: the next election, according to New Yuga of modeling. The
Speaker 1: poll released over the weekend found that if an election
Speaker 1: were held today, Labour would end up with between sixty
Speaker 1: nine and eighty seats. It shows the coalition winning between
Speaker 1: fifty five and sixty eight seats. Seventy six seats is
Speaker 1: required to form a majority. I'm Daniel James. This is
Speaker 1: seven am. Thanks for listening.