I have held fire till now because I am not clear about how best to contribute It seems to me that HES members need to engage with the three concerns presented by Tim Sealey. 1a. What is the best way of dealing with the ABS's concern to reduce 'research projects classified as "other not elsewhere classified"'. They have chosen (as I understand it) to eliminate such research projects from the classification of Economics. The question then is: where have they put these research projects? Have they eliminated them entirely or have they put these research projects under "History" or what? We need to have the facts on this before we can intervene effectively in relation to this first concern. 1b. Sealey says that the areas which have been thus eliminated in the case of economics "in some areas represented a significant proportion of the research effort". If so, what are the other areas that have been eliminated? Are they more "significant" than HE? If so, can we make common cause with them? Or are we better served by arguing for HE on its own? We need some facts here, and perhaps Aussie colleagues can winkle out some of the facts that we need? 2. What is the best way for the ABS classification system to mesh with international systems? Someone needs to look at the OECD system (which he cites) so that we can determine if that is where the problem lies. Does the OECD system also need to be challenged? Who created the OECD system? When? What have been the effects of the OECD system on research funding? Again, we need facts to be able to argue cogently.... 3a. What is the best way of limiting "the inclusion of non-active areas of research"? Sealey says that they have used what he calls an "economic measure" but when he mentions "$250k" it is clear that he means a "financial measure" (do apparently well-qualified statisticians employed by the Australian Government really not know the difference between "economics" and "finance"?). Anyway, the question is: can an argument be produced for suggesting that 250K is not an appropriate figure? (that argument would work in the case of HE only if we knew that the amount of research funding for HE in Australia was, for example, 249K or 240K or 201K... - in which case the argument could be that the decision, since marginal, should be reversed on the basis of other considerations. This approach can only work when we have facts regarding the level of funding for HE in Australia - can someone in Australia help with this too, please?) 3b. Sealey does say that the "figure decided upon was $250k with some flexibility for rapid growth areas or areas of significant importance that did not meet the (financial) benchmark". In relation to this, our argument ought to be that HE is "an area of significant importance that does not need to meet the financial benchmark". However, since this is only the third argument presented by him, I take it that this is the least effective way of proceeding? Of course it could be that this is the only recourse we have but, at present, I do not have enough facts on the basis of which to evaluate that.... As each person can, usually, only take one "shot" at this matter, do let us make sure that, when we enlist others to the cause, we are able to direct their "shots" to best advantage. I await guidance on the issue and am happy to intervene in whatever way will serve HE most effectively Prabhu Guptara