Page 3544 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
represents a very minor amount. That could certainly come under the community category. I know that the Labor Party have had a little bit of trouble as to whether it is community as well as cultural and heritage, but never mind; I believe that it could come under the community category and I accept their word that community is part of the area that is to be funded by this $19m casino premium.
Therefore, I believe that there are good reasons for examining Canberra as the site for the Commonwealth Games in 2002. I would certainly support Canberra backing off if Adelaide decides to apply again. I think that is only fair. I think it is only neighbourly in terms of Australia. But let me say that there is no reason why we, Canberra, the ACT, should not apply for the Commonwealth Games in 2002, and there is also no reason whatsoever why we should imagine that that is going to inhibit Sydney's bid for the year 2000 Olympic Games.
MADAM SPEAKER: The discussion has concluded.
CANBERRA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 19 November 1992, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CORNWELL (4.07): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the Canberra Institute of Technology (Amendment) Bill 1992. The Bill seeks to achieve three changes. The first is the name change for the current ACT TAFE. The second is an increase in the financial responsibilities without ministerial approval of the proposed and intended institute. The third is an increase in the membership of the advisory council of that institute from seven to 11 members. All three amendments are directed at raising the profile and improving the image of this important education body, and this upgrading, if I might use the word, is welcome.
As the Minister said in his introductory speech, community perceptions of TAFE as a "tech" simply do not reflect the educational services now being provided by that body. In fact, many community perceptions would be narrowly inaccurate, in my opinion, as a brief examination of the cover of the 1991 annual report will testify. Here we find nine separate schools operating out of ACT TAFE in a diversity well beyond the bounds of the traditional tech college. The diversity can be easily recognised by the names of the nine schools, and I believe that it is instructive to read them into the Hansard. We have Applied Design, Applied Science, Community Education, Construction Studies, Electrical and Electronic Studies, Engineering, General Studies, Management and Business Studies, and, finally, Tourism and Hospitality.
As the names of the schools amply testify, the ACT TAFE system has outgrown the manual arts curricula. It has also outgrown a name that I believe is synonymous with such limited educational opportunities. The new name, Canberra Institute of Technology, recognises the changes that have taken place in the ACT TAFE system, yet still recognises, in retaining "technology" in its title, those antecedents that helped make the institute what it is today. This is as it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .