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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3022 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

that is a specific requirement in the act. Ministerial discretions or decisions of this or any other nature are subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly and are part of normal ministerial accountability arrangements.

However, because of the concerns raised by Mr Berry, I am happy to move an amendment to ensure that the minister does in fact act on reasonable grounds and does take advice. I think my amendment goes further than Mr Berry's amendment in that it is more incumbent on a minister to ensure that he or she takes advice from relevant bodies so that the minister can act on reasonable grounds.

The problem with Mr Berry's amendment is that it merely refers to the Accreditation and Registration Council. The Accreditation and Registration Council has been established under the act. It has a number of functions, such as advising the minister on matters relating to the accreditation of vocational education and training courses and the registration of vocational education and training providers; accrediting vocational education in schools and the vocational education and training sector; and accrediting and registering vocational educational training providers. Whilst it does have some dealings with higher education apart from vocational education and training, fundamentally it is there to deal with vocational education and training. This bill also proposes that up to two additional members with expertise in higher education be appointed to the council.

From what I can gather, there are two bodies which any responsible minister would have to consult, or indeed the minister's department would consult prior to advising him or her, were paragraph (b) of the definition of "university" in section 4(1) ever to come into play in relation to a foreign country. Certainly one is the body that Mr Berry mentioned-the council. The other at this stage is the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee. In fact, I would suggest the council would probably have to go to the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee to get information and advice because that probably is a body which would know more about the veracity of a university established in a foreign country and recognised by the authority in the foreign country. That body would know whether or not it is a competent authority.

Off the top of my head, I am unaware whether there are any other bodies. But if there are, I would suggest it would be incumbent on the relevant minister, through his or her department, to get advice in relation to whether the foreign body was a competent authority or not.

So I suggest that the words "based on reasonable grounds" would make it more incumbent on whoever was the minister to ensure that all the relevant detail had been sought so that the grounds could be reasonable for the minister to act. I think Mr Berry's amendment-and I see exactly what he is doing-is somewhat restrictive because it deals with only one body.

I would indicate in terms of the debate on this bill that quite clearly the intention of the government is that if there was a question in relation to what a university meant to a foreign country and if there was some question as to what the competent authority was, it would be incumbent on the minister to ensure that he or she and their department received advice from both the Accreditation and Registration Council and also, as it is presently constituted, the Vice Chancellors Committee. Indeed, if there were some other

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