Natasha Ploenges:
Good afternoon. I was just waiting a couple of moments before we start the webinar, as it looks like we might still have a few more people joining us from the lobby as they're being admitted. We won't be a moment.
Excellent. I think we have everyone who has managed to join us from the lobby. So I would very much like us to start our webinar now to let you know or to introduce myself. I'm Natasha Ploenges. I'm the CEO of the Health and Medical Research Office in the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners on whose land we meet today. For me that is the Ngunnawal people, and to pay my respects to the elders past and present, and acknowledge that we are across country as well for this webinar today.
Now, the webinar that we're having, of course, is about the Indigenous Health Research Fund. But before we go into that as well, I would also like to acknowledge and thank all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have joined us for the webinar today.
And in particular, I'd like to pay my respects and say thank you to Professor Yvette Roe, who is co-presenting the webinar with me.
Now with the Indigenous Health Research Fund, so that's what we're going to be covering off in our webinar today. It really is about us talking about the upcoming grant opportunity, so the 2026 grant opportunity for it.
The key documents that we will be covering and talking about today really has to do with the consultation that is currently open. There is the draft opportunity guidelines and assessment criteria.
These documents are both available from the department's consultation hub, which is consultations.health.gov.au which you can see on the slide at the moment. There is also the QR code that is on the right hand side of the screen as well.
As part of our conversation today, it really is about making sure that we can have a conversation around that consultation that is happening. Yvette and I will be co-presenting first, then there will be an opportunity for a Q&A session at the end. So, Yvette and I will answer any questions that you might have. I also have other members of my team who are joining us and who can also help answer any of those questions that you might have too. You can send in questions via the in that sort of interactive Q&A input.
There will also be, as I said, opportunities to put those questions in the chat, so you can do that while we're going and the team will also sort of assist to help curate those questions when they come up to us.
We have made sure that other microphones are muted during the webinar, so that just helps to minimise, minimise that background noise that might happen. I think what we'll do is be able to now continue and really get started with the webinar itself. So with the presentation, what we'll be covering off is some of that sort of background and context in terms of the Medical Research Future Fund itself and then very specifically the Indigenous Health Research Fund.
There'll be background and the purpose of the Indigenous Health Research Fund and that next grant opportunity, an overview about that and also the working group that has helped with this work. Also, the consultation questions that are currently open and the next steps.
In that space as well. And as I said before, there'll be that opportunity for questions and answers at the end of it too.
Now, by way of some of that background or context for the Medical Research Future Fund, I will tend to refer to it as MRFF just to try and keep it short.
But certainly with the MRFF itself, it was established back in 2015. For those who hadn't seen this information before, it is currently the 10th anniversary for the MRFF at the moment.
So it had been established in 2015, really that sort of long-term investment to help support Australian health and Medical research. It is $6.5 billion over 10 years has been committed by the Australian government for health and Medical Research and Medical innovation through the MRFF itself. For those who haven't seen it before, the 3rd 10-year investment plan for the MRFF covers off that $6.5 billion and where those sort of high level priorities and initiatives are which will be funded over that 10-year period.
Now with the MRFF itself, it really does aim to transform health and Medical Research and Medical innovation. As I said, it's about improving lives, building the economy and contributing to the health system more broadly and its sustainability. A lot of people are very familiar with the NHMRC as one of the one of the two lead funders for health and Medical Research in Australia. But some of the differences between the MRFF and NHMRC is that the MRFF itself is a priority driven research fund. So that means our priorities are set by an independent Expert Advisory Board and the MRFF has that focus on research, translation and commercialisation.
With the NHMRC, which is certainly a larger funder or a larger funding source than the MRFF, it is primarily investigator-driven research that is done and it does cover a wide range of health needs and issues and it really does help to build that sort of foundational research capacity and capability as well.
Now with the MRFF, with the MRFF itself, so it funds research across that sort of development pipeline. So what I'll point out is on this slide in particular you can see on the far left where we have NHMRC listed there, it's really focusing on showing that NHMRC funds a lot more research in that early stages of research, whereas then the MRFF comes in much more towards that translation, that sort of commercialisation part of the research pipeline.
So some of the key features in particular with the MRFF and ones that we have been really pleased about is the way that the MRFF itself has been able to sort of be rapid and flexible when it comes to disbursements of health and medical research funding and also medical innovation funding. So, one example of that in particular was in relation to COVID-19. So during the height of the pandemic, for example, about $100 million had been provided to support COVID-19 research.
The MRFF also focuses on, particularly focuses on areas of unmet need or technology with transformational potential.
It also really aims to bring together researchers, health professionals, consumers, stakeholders and industry partners. So very much about having a focus on collaboration and establishing and forging partnerships amongst researchers and research teams to be able to deliver this and working with community in particular.
So that's part of what we talk about in terms about bringing people together, but also in terms of that collaboration and expertise investment too. In addition, the MRFF uses innovative research approaches.
So, one example of that in particular is with our Frontier Health and Medical Research initiative, which provides and employs a two-stage process when it comes to that research funding it offers.
Up to $25 million for those really high impact, ambitious research projects, the ones that we tend to refer to as those moonshots.
Now with the MRFF itself and I had mentioned earlier the 3rd 10 year investment plan.
And I said it's $6.5 billion over 10 years in that investment plan and that is from 2024-25 financial year.
It really is very much about trying to focus on initiatives and support that will provide not only life-saving research, but will also have a positive impact in terms of job creation, local industry, connection with community and also growing Australia's reputation as a world leader in health and medical research and medical innovation as well.
There are 4 themes that you will see in the MRFF 3rd 10 year investment plan. Those four themes are neatly sort of highlighted towards the left side of the screen being patients, research missions, researchers and research translation as well.
Now you might be, I'm going off script a little bit here, but you might be wondering or a bit surprised when I talk about that the MRFF has reached its 10th anniversary and yet we're up to our third 10 year investment plan. The reason for that is that we've got a rolling 10-year investment plan and it's so that researchers and the community can see you know into at least a couple years into the future where MRFF's research opportunities are going to be. So, the sorts of topics or issues that will be made available for researchers to be able to apply funding for. So there had been the 1st 10-year investment plan which was back in October 2019. It was. $5.1 billion over the 10 years. Then when we got to the 2nd 10-year investment plan that was $6.3 billion over 10 years. And now of course we have our 3rd and current 10 year investment plan which is the $6.5 billion over 10 years and as I said that commenced in the 2024-25 financial year.
Now from inception of the MRFF, so we talk about that being 2015 to the end of October 2025, the MRFF itself has awarded over $440 million across 15 MRFF initiatives and that's for 209 grants that have had a specific focus on Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander health research. So, in terms of what has been achieved or spent in terms of health and medical research through the MRFF at this point in time, that represents more than 10% of MRFF funding in particular at this point. So, for us, the Indigenous Health Research Fund itself, so that initiative has really awarded most of that grant funding itself, with about 70 grants that have been awarded. We also have other initiatives such as the Emerging Priorities and Consumer Driven Research Initiative as well and also the Preventive and Public Health Research Initiative.
So one of the things I was wanting to focus on, or at least to shine a little bit of a light on is some examples of research grants that have been funded through the MRFF.
So, one of the ones that you can see on screen there is $1.97 million, which is through the University of Melbourne. That one is very specifically in relation to cardiovascular health. So, it came through the 2023 cardiovascular health grant opportunity for the MRFF. There is also another one I wanted to provide as an example, which is that research funding which is through the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health and that is just shy of $5 million and that's in relation to birthing in the community and maternal and infant health.
Now with the MRFF Indigenous Health Research Fund, as I'd said, it's one of the initiatives that we have under the MRFF. So it's one of 22 initiatives and it is listed in the MRFF 3rd 10 year investment plan.
It's providing $160 million over 11 years and that is back from 2018-19 year out to 11 years and that is specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander led research to improve the health of Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander people and communities too.
So to date with the Indigenous Health Research Fund, over $130 million has been awarded and that is for about 70 projects through several grant opportunities. With the Indigenous Health Research Fund, those grant opportunities themselves were actually informed by priorities for investment that were identified in the Indigenous Health Research Fund Roadmap and Implementation Plan. Those documents themselves were actually developed by our independent Expert Advisory Body for the for the Indigenous Health Research Fund.
The panel itself was appointed from September 2019 to September 2022. The panel was co-chaired by Professor Alex Brown and also Professor Misty Jenkins as well. And we were really appreciative of being able to have not only a really great group of independent experts to help shape the work, but it has also then helped to make sure that those documents underwent consultation, including also international review as well before they were finalised.
Now a review about the progress of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap had been released by the Productivity Commission, and that was only about 1 and a half years ago now.
One of the one of the really key messages that we heard from that Productivity Commission's review and indeed through speaking with and working with First Nations communities and researchers is really the absolute importance of making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities and the government do work together to make sure that we overcome inequality, which is experienced particularly by Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander people.
Part of being able to deliver on or address that is about changing the way that we develop up and deliver on our medical research grant opportunities. And really putting at the forefront that self-determination as being a cornerstone to being able to do that work.
Now, with the Indigenous Health Research Fund itself, it is very much for that next grant opportunity, very much about making sure that we align with those recommendations, and that we're really taking steps to actually try and address and make that change that we need and want to see.
So as part of that, the next grant opportunity which will be that $28.5 million that will be awarded through a competitive process to an Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander community controlled program or organisation.
Now the purpose of that is making sure that that organisation that is then leading it would conduct a review to assess progress of the Indigenous Health Research Fund towards its vision and priorities, being informed by that developing strategic priorities investment plan to actually guide the research investment itself and then running one or more open and competitive processes to actually identify and select Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander Health and Medical Research projects. It will then very much be about partnering with successful projects to provide that funding and support to ensure that those projects are successful and really do aim to and help to address health issues that are facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait.
Islander people as well.
Now this is just a bit of a snapshot for you to be able to see, a bit of a representation of what that grant opportunity would look like. So as I said, it would be about an MRFF grant being provided, to a community controlled program, that organisation that is successful, then being able to conduct that review, setting those priorities and then of course identifying and selecting those research projects and providing the funding and support to those particular projects.
So just to, I guess, either highlight or to clarify how the funding will be delivered itself.
So there are two particular pathways. So, there is that sort of blue circle towards the top around the community-controlled program that's referred to there now. So that will be about funding, first and foremost funding the organisation.
And providing that $28.5 million from the Medical Research Future Fund to that successful applicant for the grant opportunity to run the program itself. And then the second way that funding will be distributed is that blue circle towards the bottom of the screen.
Which is about allocating really the vast majority of that grant funding to support research projects themselves.
In terms of those projects, projects will be selected by the program to actually meet the needs of the community. It could include things like projects led by community-controlled organisations, research conducted by Indigenous businesses, research conducted in universities or research institutes, and it may involve innovative projects or activities as well. That could include support for emerging researchers and community-based researchers too.
Applications themselves really will be considered and should be considered involving collaboration. So there can be collaboration between multiple organisations and that really is encouraged. It is a key feature for us for the Medical Research Future Fund to make sure that there is that collaborative approach and certainly applications from consortium really are encouraged for this.
So as part of that, multiple organisations can come together to be on a single application to apply for this grant opportunity. The lead organisation then applying to this grant opportunity can be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Organisation.
Alternatively, if the lead organisation itself is not a community controlled organisation, the applicant really must detail how the lead organisation has had a long and established relationship with and will partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Organisations to actually deliver on the program itself and how the program will incorporate the principles of community control and genuine leadership by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Only the lead organisation on an application needs to be an MRFF eligible organisation.
The length of the grant will be for seven years and the grant opportunity guidelines, they do not specify the timing and budget for each of the grant activities, so those projects as well. So, this is to this is to provide flexibility and allow for innovative approaches from applicants themselves.
We really do think that applicants will be best placed and will be able to determine and describe in their applications the timing for each activity and how much of the grant funding will be allocated to each activity that's there. Again, it's really important for me to reiterate that the vast majority of the funding is to be used to support those research projects, so being that bottom row in that diagram there.
The program can fund its own health and medical research projects, as long as the projects themselves have been appropriately selected through independent and transparent processes.
For us, one of the things that we're really excited about is that it is, it really is a good opportunity to have an innovative approach to the funding. We haven't done this type of approach for our research grant funding for the MRFF before, particularly in relation to First Nations health. So, we are really keen to be able take this forward and to be able to see it work. And for us that's why it was particularly important to be able to run this consultation and get those views from people from communities, from organisations, about how it can work. We really do want the grant opportunity to be able to deliver on its purpose and aligning with closing the gap and making sure that we're really able to deliver on collectively what we really need and want to do when it comes to health and medical research, particularly for First Nations people. I'm now really pleased to be able to introduce you to or hand over, I should say.
To the chair of our working group, which had the working group which had worked with us and had advised on the design of the grant opportunity. Professor Yvette Rowe was the chair of that working group. I'd now like to hand over to Yvette.
Yvette Roe:
Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for that question in the chat there, Louise. I understand the policy staff from Natasha's team is responding to that. So please keep your questions coming. This is a terrific opportunity to try and make it as robust, transparent, impactful and inclusive as we can for this new funding initiative, I was really fortunate to chair a very dynamic and diverse multidisciplinary team of researchers to provide guidance on the objectives, the funding matrix and some key policy issues regarding this initiative. Is it perfect? No. Have we come a long way in the discussions? Definitely and we've like Natasha said, this consultation and the webinar is a real opportunity for all feedback. And so again, going to Louise's point there about existing programs, I think that's a really important question. As you can see the members early career, Doctor Brooke Conely in Allied Health. Adam is a lab scientist. Julee is a cardiovascular specialist and Professor Maree Toomb's in social and emotional mental health. So, we tried to bring a team together to look at some key objectives and there are some key -if you can go to the next slide - there's some key principles that we wanted to make sure that the initiative really focused on. One was to address the recommendations from the Productivity Commission, which was something innovative and new looking at the Closing the Gap priority reforms, what that looked like, ensuring that it was accessible, it was definitely innovative, that it actually looked in different ways and innovative ways that the community control sector or community control could drive this initiative. And so we took that lens looking at all the documents that's in front of you today.
And like I said, your comments are really, really appreciated. The working group of eyes on the grant opportunity guidelines. For those of us who have written guidelines, they often can be complex, convoluted, confusing, and often you feel like chasing your tail.
Please review the guidelines, the objective, the outcome, assessment criteria and glossary information. If there are any questions about it, provide all your comments. Again, what we saw and provided comments on, we might have missed things. Your comments again are coming from applied researchers who are thinking about how do I answer these questions to be in a in a nationally competitive funding initiative. So if we go to the guidelines first, we know that research is an important player in providing and generating evidence, but we also know that's only one element of that our Aboriginal and Torres Islander communities need.
One of the things that were really clear is that how do we genuinely know that it's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders leading these initiatives. When and what does that look like in partnership, in collaboration. We ensure that not only do you have the title, but what is the Indigenous governance mechanism.
As per each applicant and how is that in your application described and the mechanisms to guide the approach and the initiative being funded. And governance - talk about integrated indigenous knowledge systems and what that looks like and how that's described, but not just the description, how it's applied throughout the application, how it asserts Indigenous data sovereignty, governance and sovereignty and Indigenous knowledge translation. How does it support uplift community based researchers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge holders.
These key themes are often, again for many of us, they're key principles that we do our research, but they're actually not in funding guidelines. So that's again part of the new initiative of the MRFF. Other things that we considered was the diversity of projects.
And ensure, where we could, could the program accelerate positive impact projects. We know that we can't do them by themselves. Are the projects collaborative? Do they form partnerships? Do they share learnings? Even to the point, are they transdisciplinary?
How will it support and uplift the next generation of researchers, including and more focused on community-controlled organisation?
And one of the things that was really important, is the program evaluated to inform similar projects? We know there's been some literature to try and do an assessment on has this kind of initiative been used internationally? Which is being reviewed, but we know in Australian context this is the first time such a bold initiative has been used by a government department. Next one.
So to sort of break down, and please really consider these questions, the feedback that will come from the questions will help Natasha and her team articulate and ensure that they're reflected in the guidelines.
And that again, if we've missed some key objectives or some wording or misunderstanding, that can be restated. So, question one, reviewing the aims. The aims helped empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled research to accelerate positive impact on health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Line peoples. Does the design of the grant opportunity achieve this? If it doesn't achieve it, how could it achieve it? So again, does the aim really hit what the sector needs?
Question two - Are the objectives, meaning how you're going to achieve your aim, and the outcomes appropriate to what we're trying to do in this grant initiative? Are we, you know, is it clear? Is it concise in what we're trying to say there?
Question three - This is the very interesting one and often when I hear feedback from researchers, it is on how will I be assessed? Is it independent? Is it peer reviewed? Is it transparent? So please review the wording of the assessment criteria. There is no hidden agenda behind how people get assessed.
This is a real clear opportunity to review about what is a high-ranking assessment versus a low-ranking assessment. Each column, each criteria, has been reviewed. There are similar wordings that might confuse people or people who need clarification on. Please provide, you know, comment on that.
And again, the last one is for the overall initiative, for key elements of the initiative, are there any comments or suggestions regarding the draft opportunity? One thing that we know that will come back is do we have enough time to lead up to that? Going back to Louise's question, what happens to existing grant initiatives? Other question that has been proposed is what does collaboration really look like? Will universities just do some black cladding with organisations? There's lots of concerns. There's lots of way people are looking at this. So whatever those queries are, please put them in the chat box. If you need some time to reflect, I know at the end of this presentation there will be some contact details. There's a QR code to provide your comments as well.
In the sense of the next steps again, in three weeks-time the consultations will close. If you have nothing to do at 11:59pm, please review these documents at midnight on the 28th November. These comments will then go back to the department for some analysis.
Again, the Advisory Group will provide guidance, at the end of the day it is a department funding initiative. We will provide guidance on that. The working group will review the analysis and provide advice on strategies on moving the suggestions forward to refine the grant opportunity.
Natasha and her team will then put a document together for the Minister for Health and Ageing to consider. And again, the Advisory Group have no leverage over that. With the aim of the funding opportunity to be in the first quarter of 2026.
It is a quite a short deadline and obviously if it gets delayed longer, that means longer to get some of the key deliverables done, as Natasha described in the key activities of the grant initiative, There's always going to be things that unforeseen consequences when you're trying to get an initiative up that you might not think of. So please include that is those in your in your comments.
Again, this initiative is not going to fix everything, but please look at the slide on applying for the opportunity and other ways to be involved with your organisation. The timing might not be the right time for you due to capacity building, due to existing workloads on your table, on your program of work. To apply for the grant opportunity when it opens, ensure the lead organisation on the application is eligible for MRFF. If you're not quite sure what the eligibility criteria is, post a comment in the chat box. Be really clear.
Do not make assumptions on what you think the eligibility criteria. Get some advice from the department on what that is.
Express interest on being on the grant assessment committee. The peer review process is really important. It's one of our scientific merits to ensure that there's transparency, robustness to the grant procedures. So people who would like to be on the assessment committee, please nominate your colleague or yourselves and more information regarding eligibility for the Grant Assessment Committee will be provided by Natasha and the team.
Because of we anticipate there'll be a multidisciplinary approach to what this consortium or community control initiative would look like, we need diverse expertise for people who will be assessing those grants.
Is there a wrong question? No. All questions are welcome and encouraged. We know that, as Natasha said, this has been 10 years. The department has learnt a lot of lessons during that time.
And this is one big initiative that they feel, again, the Productivity Commission, the priority reform agenda will help accelerate some of those learnings into this new initiative.
All right, I will hand it back to Natasha and Dan.
Daniel Suban:
Hello everyone. I'll just introduce myself quickly. I'm Daniel Suban, part of the Health and Medical Research Office in the team that looks after a number of MRFF initiatives, including the Indigenous Health Research Fund. And I'll just be assisting with reading out any questions.
And I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands in which I'm joining from today, which is the Ngunnawal people and pay my respects to elders past and present and extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people joining us today. So, I'll move over to the questions. So, if you see at the top of your screen, there'll be a Q&A tab. So, if you click that one, you can submit your question and I've already seen that a number of questions have come through so far. So, I'll go with the first question that's come through and that is, while the vast majority of funding will be used for the research projects, it still means that a potentially significant amount of the $28.5 million will be taken out to support the review and the administration of the project funding. Is this fair? The government doesn't apply this model to other funding streams. This cost is incurred by government outside the grant funding. So I think it's really about the funding amount, and how much will be used for project funding versus administration funding? So if there's any comments from Natasha or Yvette on that?
Natasha Ploenges:
Yeah, I'm, I'm happy to happy to start answering first, Dan. So, we haven't specified how much of that $28.5 million would go for that review and support activity that would happen.
We really would want applicants to make sure they put that in their application for the grant round and to make sure of course that it's really clearly justified. We have said that the vast majority of funding, so the vast majority of that $28.5 million needs to go on research grants themselves, but we want this to be, you know, really that open opportunity to understand what the lead organisation or the applicant thinks it would actually need to spend on that sort of administrative activity, undertaking the review and providing that support. So that's why we haven't specified a specific amount for the organisation versus the research grants themselves.
This is, as we've talked about, really a new opportunity and a new way for us to do this. And you know, we're really keen to be able to see it work and we're keen to see what applicants put forward as part of that Yvette.
Yvette Roe:
Yeah, Louise, I think that's a really important question. So much can be chewed up in administration and for a new initiative you could spend a lot on administration. I think that one of the key questions is do we need to identify a cap for the administration versus what goes out to program areas and I think your valid point of actually this doesn't happen with other initiatives yet these initiatives get rolled out. I'd really like you to provide some additional information on that should there be a cap regarding the administration budget and what does that mean in the sense of organisational capacity to roll out a new initiative if you're entering this sort of space for the first time. So thank you for that question.
Daniel Suban:
Thank you. So over to the next question, given that many of the MRFF funded research projects are still being undertaken, how will the review be successful by the successful entity? Sorry, be able to assess the deliverables and impact to date. So that's the review being conducted by the program.
Given, you know, the questions regarding that number of the projects that they'll be reviewing are still ongoing.
Any comments on those?
Natasha Ploenges:
So, oh, go for it, Yvette. We're both diving in.
Yvette Roe:
Yep. So I guess from again the Advisory Committee perspective, we would want to make sure those existing programs are not disadvantaged in funding opportunities going forward and that that evaluation is done to add value to the process and not as a burden to the people who are currently operating, and delivering those grants. I know there's a broader framework that the MRFF is taking regarding evaluation and Natasha, I'll hand it over to you how you see that integration of existing evaluation of existing programs and this new initiative.
Natasha Ploenges:
Thanks. Thanks very much, Yvette. And yes, thank you for that question as well. I mean for us with the MRFF, of course, it's still and I will class it still as you know, relatively early days for the MRFF since it's only just reached 10 years.
So I think it is being able for the lead organisation to be able to undertake that review, look at what's been done so far. You're absolutely right. There won't be that sort of completion of all of those existing research activities to be able to consider.
But we can look at what has been - the lead organisation could look at what has been, you know, some of the outputs I guess to date as part of that in particular and what is initially being achieved.
Daniel Suban:
Over to the next question from Justin, can you please define what a community-controlled organisation is and are there any examples of such organisations? I'll just throw in a quick comment that there in the glossary in the guidelines that are provided as part of the consultation, there is a definition at the bottom of that. But over to Natasha and Yvette.
Yvette Roe:
I think Natasha put up a really clear example - the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health with its $5 million in MRFF funding is a prime example of an Aboriginal community controlled organisation which has a governing Aboriginal and Torres Islander governing board.
And they're very clear on their terms of reference. Please review the glossary and if there's any further clarification on what an Aboriginal and Torres Strait community-controlled organisation is, please put those questions up. But there's a pretty standard definition of what a community-controlled organisation is.
Natasha Ploenges:
I was just going to add to that as well is that certainly the lead organisation applying for the grant for that grant opportunity can be an Aboriginal Torres Strait Island community controlled organisation, but alternatively the lead organisation if the lead organisation is not a community controlled organisation, the applicant will need to actually detail how the lead organisation itself has that strong connection and relationship with and how it will partner with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisation as well to deliver the program. So just to perhaps answer another part of another part of that question.
Daniel Suban:
And that leads on to the next question, which is a statement saying that there are only a couple of entities that could apply to be the administering body for these funds and they may not have the full bandwidth and knowledge required to review and address emerging or niche health research areas, for example genomics, precision medicine and AI.
How will these gaps be addressed without adversely impacting on the funding amount available and of course the timelines?
So maybe to Yvette if you have any comments.
Yvette Roe:
Yeah, I think it's a really valid comment about the skill set that's in universities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, the load that's on them. I think again, there's lots of things that we tried to consider.
The initiative tries to look at the community control sector driving that. I think those details of trying to have a different arrangements with universities and the community control sector this initiative tries to drive that forward. I think in the recommendations provided the assessment and how we draw on our expertise of colleagues who are in the Academy is going to be really important, which also doesn't disadvantage them, but is able to work more closely, can take out the university administration. I think there's going to be a mix of what all that looks like. I don't think there's going to be one-size-fits-all. It could be a consortium. It could be people who are opting to offer their expertise to the community control sector, noting that most Aboriginal and Torres Islander researchers are already working in partnership with organisations. So, I think if anything, the sector will come up with innovations on what that could look like. So, I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all, but you're right about the bandwidth and the expectations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and the load that they might have to carry.
Daniel Suban:
Thanks, Yvette. Over to the next question. Does the funding support programs around building capacity if researchers and Aboriginal community to be involved in research? So, it's just, yeah, if the program can support capacity in that space.
From my perspective, looking at the guidelines, there's no restriction to activities and support on the projects that can be provided. I think there's a dot point saying that the program is to support our researchers and build capacity - but comments from Natasha or Yvette.
Yvette Roe:
Yeah, I think again when we talk about research capacity, it is from the people who are community brokers to Aboriginal health workers to people working within community controlled organisation to people who are doing their HDRs in non-Indigenous people, our colleagues.
I think the exciting thing is what that initiative could look like and what those grants, as Natasha said in one of the big key policy items for this initiative is that capacity building is one of the core anchor points. So we didn't want to prescribe what that would look like, but actually allow the applicant to be really innovative in what that could look like, what they could be. But we know that across the spectrum of developing workforce capacity around research from community researchers right up to, you know, established researchers is really critical. So we're going to not prescribe what it looks like, but allow the sector to decide what those initiatives could look like. Natasha.
Natasha Ploenges:
I think Yvette, you and Dan covered that really nicely. You know, my very short answer would have been, yes, that type of support is absolutely within scope.
Daniel Suban:
Next question, I think you've already addressed this, Natasha, but I'll read it out. Must the administering organisation be a community-controlled organisation and how you detailed previously, you know the types of organisations that can apply. So over to the next question and this one is more of a comment than a question.
Many of our top Indigenous health researchers are employed through universities, and I worry this will limit their ability or capacity to lead in the health research that this grant round offers. So, it's more a comment. I'll just add a comment saying that the projects that are funded by this program can go to universities, so. there's still opportunities for support through that mechanism, but Natasha or Yvette if you have any comments.
Natasha Ploenges:
I'd just like to add that you know really recognise of course that that comment that you had provided Louise and your concern in that space, but also recognising that we're really looking for collaboration and looking for ways for there to be really good partnerships. So that may be one of those areas that helps to address that concern that you've raised.
Daniel Suban:
I can go to the next question, a more of a technical question. So, it's a two-part question from Paul. Will this funding opportunity be considered a category one and the funded projects that this project will roll out, will they also be considered category one projects? So that's to do with block funding. A bit of a technical question. I'm not sure if we can answer it here, Natasha, but if you have any comments, maybe it's an offline question.
Natasha Ploenges:
I was going to say I'm happy for us, Dan, to take to take that question on notice and we can come back, we can come back to folks on that one.
Daniel Suban:
Yep. Thank you, Paul.
Yvette Roe:
What one, Dan, I think that's really important to clarify. Again, there there's incentives regarding certain categories, regarding that. I think that's a really important point regarding what that block funding looks like, who's eligible for it, and you know, what a nationally competitive funding round looks like so at the recent OCHRe congregation there was some clarity and so we will be able to provide that in a Q&A response for you, Paul.
Daniel Suban:
I think it might be in a separate chat, a couple of questions. So, I'll see if there I'll have a look at those ones. One is can a newly registered ACCHO apply? I think again, that's probably going back to the previous questions about organisations that can apply.
I think on the consultation page has a link to MRFF eligible organisations with information about how to be one. But in saying that only the lead applicant has to be an MRFF eligible organisation, so other organisations can partner with a MRFF eligible organisation. So keep that in mind.
I'm not sure if Natasha, you have any comments on that. Maybe not.
Natasha Ploenges:
Only other thing I'll add is, Yvette spoke about this earlier, and that's really about making sure if you're interested or your organisation is interested in in applying for this, really do look early at things like becoming an MRFF eligible.
And making sure that you're able to look at that and maybe address that really early on as part of your consideration too.
Daniel Suban:
And another question we have here, which is I think building on other questions from others. Does this funding support building capacity of non-aboriginal researchers in creating smoother pathways for Aboriginal community engagement and capacity building? So that's about non-aboriginal researchers and capacity building for those.
Yvette Roe:
Yeah, I think I might have answered that in my previous response regarding the pipeline of capacity building and the initiatives that will we know that's already in in the existing grant guidelines. Again, it would be up to the grant holder to really specify those guidelines.
And we can't see that differing so much from the existing guidelines where we know, you know, again going from community researchers to early career, mid-career to experienced researchers from the community control sector depending on the grant application will really clarify what the workforce capacity building initiative is and we know there's lots of different ways that organisations build capacity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, non-Indigenous staff. So, we're really looking forward to those initiatives coming through the applications.
Daniel Suban:
So that's all we've had for the questions. Maybe we'll give you a little bit of time. So just a reminder, if you want to ask a question, there's a tab at the top, a Q&A tab if you can submit a question. Otherwise that's all we have at the moment.Yvette the floor is yours.
Yvette Roe:
So probably just to, there's a one of the things the advisory committee really thought about was again with such a new initiative, we could go with the system that we know and how that works and accept its limitations or we could try something that's a little bit different. I think the question around what is the administrative cost and how does that impact on program the research program, I think that's a really a question that needs to be clarified and given some sort of advice on. I think it's really important otherwise you could chew up money very quick just on the administrative delivery of something. The four key things, the objectives of the first part regarding a scoping review, doing a priority is actually quite a complex thing. Is that a sufficient timeline? What if you're starting from scratch and this is a new initiative for your organisation? What kind of support will you be given in going through that process? The idea that someone asked as a question to me was, will we need to set up a different, grant portal system? You know, what if we've got one? Do we need something more sophisticated? Do we have specifications on what a grant portal system might look like, you know, it's a big new initiative for the community control sector. Does the department have a communication strategy besides this, the consultation strategy to inform the sector of how this is going forward? So there are a lot of queries. Is there some definite answers? No. And I think in the sense of asking for questions, maybe the other part of thing is some of the solutions that you think the sector might be thinking about. You know, going back to Louise's question, because of the limited bandwidth, what's the one way we could address that limit and shortage of bandwidth and the burden on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics in in institutions. You know, what kind of support would a new community control organisation who want to go into this space, what kind of support would they need?
So think of your questions in the sense of this could be considered a problem. One way to overcome that problem would be to consider this in your funding initiative. So I guess I'm restating that maybe Natasha and the team don't have all the answers. So take this opportunity as providing some really innovative responses on how those unforeseen circumstances could be addressed.
Daniel Suban:
Yeah, there's no more questions. So, I think that wraps up the Q&A session. Any final comments? I know you had some comments there Yvette, but Natasha?
Natasha Ploenges:
Yeah, I think just to also reiterate what Yvette had said, you know, we don't necessarily have all the answers at this point in time. That's why we're also doing this consultation, but we are genuinely wanting to see and wanting to have a different way of making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Medical Research is provided and is supported and we want to hear from you about how we can, how we can go about best doing that and the ways that we can have that shaped as part of this upcoming grant opportunity. So, we really do look forward to and we really will value the feedback and the advice that you provide us.
And I will also say a shout out and thanks to Yvette and the Working Group for supporting this work and providing that direction and advice so far. And knowing of course that that work's not over yet, but we have really appreciated it. It's been great.
Daniel Suban:
That wraps it up. Thank you very much as well from me. Thank you.