Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 172 ..

MR MOORE (11.43), in reply: Mr Speaker, it is important to correct a perception that I think Ms Horodny put across that the Government had completely ignored the recommendations of the committee. There were a number that she was quite specific about and I think made valid points about; but, in fact, the vast bulk of the recommendations that the committee made were accepted by the Government. One of the things that have actually been pleasant in our current hearings on the capital works program, which I will make a statement to the Assembly about in a short while, is that there have been quite a number of clear benefits in terms of the material supplied. The Government was actually particularly responsive in terms of the structural things that the committee had asked to be achieved, the timing of the capital works and the preparation of the material.

This time it is far, far easier for the committee to understand what is going on. All-of-life costings are included. With the exception of one or two areas, the general preparation of the material has been particularly convenient and exceptional. That process, the committee felt, has actually led to far better outcomes. No doubt the committee will still seek to improve those outcomes again this year and, I imagine, in the coming years; but I think it is fair to say that the Government has responded quite positively to the general bulk of those recommendations.

This is an unusual situation, in that we are responding to last year's capital works program at the same time as the committee is looking at this year's capital works program. I hope that by this time next year we will have even better outcomes from the work that is being done in the committee and from the particularly positive work of a number of public servants involved in ensuring that the work is prepared appropriately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed from 26 October 1995, on motion by Ms Follett:

That the report be noted.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (11.46): Mr Speaker, I present the Government's response to the Public Accounts Committee Report No. 5, "Review of the Auditor-General's Report Number 3, 1995 - Canberra Institute of Technology - Comparative Teaching Costs and Effectiveness". On 22 June 1995 the Auditor-General's Report No. 3, "Canberra Institute of Technology - Comparative Teaching Costs and Effectiveness", was tabled in the Assembly. The audit aimed to compare the costs of teaching services in CIT with TAFE institutes in other States to determine whether CIT's education delivery teaching activities, operations and resources have been effectively and economically managed. It also assessed whether CIT was providing an effective vocational education and training system in the ACT.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .