|
representatives vote 2007-03-28#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:18:16
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-28.19.1 motion] "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Smith&mpc=Perth&house=representatives Stephen Smith]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-27.69.1 amendment]) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion ("That this bill be now read a second time")(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) unchanged and rejected Mr Smith's amendment to it.Mr Smith's amendment to the original motion had been the following:''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 RQF(Research Quality Framework. Read more about the RQF [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework here].
) 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 Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and''''(6) the Research Quality Framework 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”.''Background to the billThe [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2728 bill] was designed to implement the [http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/StudentSupport/NationalProtocolsForHigherEducationApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes] (the Protocols) following a review and consultation process regarding the existing protocols.(Read more about the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/HHJM6/upload_binary/hhjm65.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (105 KB).) It also provides funding for implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research: the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework Research Quality Framework] (RQF).Among other things, the bill: * revises the maximum funding amounts for the operation of the Research Quality Framework; * reflects changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes; * clarifies the administration of the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students; * provides for suspension of higher education providers by legislative instrument; and* limits the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support. References- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-28.19.1) "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr [Stephen Smith](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Smith&mpc=Perth&house=representatives)’s [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-27.69.1)) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion ("That this bill be now read a second time")(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ) unchanged and rejected Mr Smith's amendment to it.
- Mr Smith's amendment to the original motion had been the following:
- _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 RQF(Research Quality Framework. Read more about the RQF [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework). ) 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 Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and_
- _(6) the Research Quality Framework 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”._
- Background to the bill
- The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2728) was designed to implement the [revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes](http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/StudentSupport/NationalProtocolsForHigherEducationApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx) (the Protocols) following a review and consultation process regarding the existing protocols.(Read more about the bill in the [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/HHJM6/upload_binary/hhjm65.pdf;fileType=application/pdf) (105 KB).) It also provides funding for implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research: the [Research Quality Framework](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework) (RQF).
- Among other things, the bill:
- - revises the maximum funding amounts for the operation of the Research Quality Framework;
- - reflects changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes;
- - clarifies the administration of the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students;
- - provides for suspension of higher education providers by legislative instrument; and
- - limits the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support.
- References
|
|
representatives vote 2007-03-28#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:09
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-28.19.1 motion] "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Smith&mpc=Perth&house=representatives Stephen Smith]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-27.69.1 amendment]) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion ("That this bill be now read a second time")[1] unchanged and rejected Mr Smith's amendment to it.- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-28.19.1 motion] "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Smith&mpc=Perth&house=representatives Stephen Smith]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-27.69.1 amendment]) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion ("That this bill be now read a second time")(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) unchanged and rejected Mr Smith's amendment to it.
- Mr Smith's amendment to the original motion had been the following:
- ''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 RQF[2] is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term, basic research;''- ''(2) as proposed by the Government, the RQF(Research Quality Framework. Read more about the RQF [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework here].
) 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 Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and''
- ''(6) the Research Quality Framework 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”.''
- Background to the bill
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2728 bill] was designed to implement the [http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/StudentSupport/NationalProtocolsForHigherEducationApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes] (the Protocols) following a review and consultation process regarding the existing protocols.[3] It also provides funding for implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research: the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework Research Quality Framework] (RQF).- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2728 bill] was designed to implement the [http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/StudentSupport/NationalProtocolsForHigherEducationApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes] (the Protocols) following a review and consultation process regarding the existing protocols.(Read more about the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/HHJM6/upload_binary/hhjm65.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (105 KB).) It also provides funding for implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research: the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework Research Quality Framework] (RQF).
- Among other things, the bill:
- * revises the maximum funding amounts for the operation of the Research Quality Framework;
- * reflects changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes;
- * clarifies the administration of the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students;
- * provides for suspension of higher education providers by legislative instrument; and
- * limits the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support.
- References
* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].* [2] Research Quality Framework. Read more about the RQF [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework here].* [3] Read more about the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/HHJM6/upload_binary/hhjm65.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (105 KB).
|
|
representatives vote 2007-03-28#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-06 11:42:37
|
Title
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 — Second Reading- Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Research Quality Framework
Description
<p pwmotiontext="moved">That this bill be now read a second time.</p><p pwmotiontext="moved">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;<dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review;</dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>as proposed by the Government, the Research Quality Framework (RQF) is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term, basic research;</dd><dt>(3)</dt><dd>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;</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt;</dd><dt>(5)</dt><dd>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</dd><dt>(6)</dt><dd>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”—</dd></dl></p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Smith’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-28.19.1 motion] "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Smith&mpc=Perth&house=representatives Stephen Smith]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-03-27.69.1 amendment]) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion ("That this bill be now read a second time")[1] unchanged and rejected Mr Smith's amendment to it.
- Mr Smith's amendment to the original motion had been the following:
- ''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 RQF[2] 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 Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and''
- ''(6) the Research Quality Framework 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”.''
- Background to the bill
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2728 bill] was designed to implement the [http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/StudentSupport/NationalProtocolsForHigherEducationApprovalProcesses/Pages/default.aspx revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes] (the Protocols) following a review and consultation process regarding the existing protocols.[3] It also provides funding for implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research: the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework Research Quality Framework] (RQF).
- Among other things, the bill:
- * revises the maximum funding amounts for the operation of the Research Quality Framework;
- * reflects changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes;
- * clarifies the administration of the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students;
- * provides for suspension of higher education providers by legislative instrument; and
- * limits the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support.
- References
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] Research Quality Framework. Read more about the RQF [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Quality_Framework here].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/HHJM6/upload_binary/hhjm65.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (105 KB).
|