Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop:

That this bill be now read a second time.

upon which Mr Stephen Smith moved by way of amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that while assessing the quality and effectiveness of university research is a necessary and desirable public policy objective;

(1)

any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review;

(2)

as proposed by the Government, the Research Quality Framework (RQF) is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term, basic research;

(3)

the university sector has assessed that the RQF would reduce research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities;

(4)

essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt;

(5)

the cost and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting processes mean that the Government’s proposed RQF risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and

(6)

the RQF measures and processes as set out in the Bill should not be proceeded with, and should be replaced by a model that is fair, equitable, tailored to different disciplines and international best practice”—

See this item in context