The federal government has been accused of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” after it axed a $760 million research commercialisation program in the budget to fund other science initiatives. The budget includes a $387.4 million boost to support the financial sustainability of the CSIRO, the national science agency, as well as $273 million for the National Measurement Institute. However, these measures are funded by “returning uncommitted funding from the Australia’s Economic Accelerator (AEA) program, which is expected to decrease payments by $759.9 million over the five years to 2029–30”.
Researchers Express Anger and Frustration
The axing of the AEA, established in 2023 to translate research into real-world economic and social benefits, has angered researchers who say it undermines the government’s own priorities. Professor Melanie Davern, director of the Australian Urban Observatory at RMIT University, learned on Monday that she had wasted months preparing an AEA grant proposal for a funding round that closed in March. Her proposal, involving AI in urban planning, included a business case and four industry partners, including an ASX-listed developer. “It took us at least three months, if not more time, to prepare this,” she said. “I still haven’t actually been notified officially by the government [about the AEA’s axing].”
At Davern’s university alone, there were about 85 applications in the same round. She pointed to the time and effort wasted by researchers and university staff across Australia. “The big problem here is that there is not enough investment going in,” she said. “Obviously, yes, CSIRO needs support. But this is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Industry and Academic Leaders Weigh In
Universities Australia said the sector was “bearing the brunt of increased regulation and costs at a time when investment in teaching and research is not keeping up”. Chief executive Luke Sheehy stated: “We welcome the focus on R&D in the budget, but it can’t simply come from moving funding from one pot to another. The decision to axe Australia’s Economic Accelerator, in particular, is deeply disappointing and sends the wrong signal at exactly the wrong time. The AEA was designed to help turn Australian research into Australian companies, Australian industries and Australian jobs. You cannot talk about building a Future Made in Australia while cutting one of the country’s key research commercialisation programs.”
Professor Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science, described the repurposing of the AEA as “disappointing”. While the AAS welcomed other budget measures such as money to establish a National Resilience and Science Council, Jagadish said “the absence of a material increase in the government’s investment in science means … more is needed”.
Ryan Winn, chief executive of Science & Technology Australia, also welcomed the National Resilience and Science Council, but said the budget “gives with one hand but takes with the other”. He added: “There is an overwhelming sense of uncertainty in the research and development industry as funding for non-medical research grants see a significant reduction. The government also wants a Future Made in Australia. But increasingly our workforce doesn’t see a future here.”
Investment in research and development (R&D) in Australia as a proportion of GDP is about 1.7%, well below the OECD average of 2.7%. The axing of the AEA has sparked widespread criticism, with many arguing that it undermines the government’s own goals for innovation and economic growth.
