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