Skip Navigation | ANU Home | Search ANU | Directories

Research

Conclusions of the ELT/GMT meeting on 18 May 2006

The main conclusions reached at this meeting were as follows:

• Participants were unanimous in supporting GMT as the best ELT project for Australia to join, at least for the Design Development Phase (DDP).
• Participants were also overwhelmingly in favour of supporting Australian involvement in the GMT DDP through NCRIS, provided that governance issues could be addressed.
• Participants required governance arrangements that would ensure that any NCRIS funds fully benefit the whole community, while at the same time recognising ANU's contribution. Participants strongly preferred a single, combined 'Australian' share in GMT.
• Participants expressed a strong preference for NCRIS funds at least matching the ANU's involvement in the GMT DDP - i.e. for NCRIS to provide at least 5% of US$56M (i.e. about $3.7M) over the period 2007-2009.
• The meeting recognised, however, that there were many constraints on the NCRIS funding, and did not wish the above strong preference to indicate an "all or nothing" position. Alternative options that allowed Australian involvement in the GMT DDP at some lower level might therefore be considered, if necessary.

Participants noted several advantages to funding a full 5% GMT DDP share through NCRIS:

• It allows the Australian community to at least match ANU's involvement (so that the broader community is at least on a level footing with ANU in the project).
• It provides funds for the full duration of the DDP (i.e. up to the decision point for proceeding to the construction phase of the project).
• It gives time for mounting a bid for major 'Landmark' funding for GMT (the project will need strong indications that it can find most of the construction funds before the end of the DDP in 2009; a bid for Australia's share of the construction phase should therefore enter the Federal Budget process no later than October 2008, with preparatory groundwork laid much earlier).

The meeting explicitly did not address the merits of this use of NCRIS funds relative to other calls on those funds, but participants were asked to report their conclusions from the meeting back to their own institutions in order that a considered opinion on the best global use of NCRIS funding could be provided to the NCRIS Facilitator when he visits each institution.

Matthew Colless (Chair, ELT Working Group)