Page 656 - Week 02 - Thursday, 17 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(3) Did those organisations discover (a) they were receiving around half the previous level of Roving Tutor services or (b) that their services had stopped completely, when the service resumed three weeks later;
(4) Why was the Roving Tutor service cut so abruptly without adequate notice to the host organisations or the tutors themselves;
(5) If the cuts were related to funds, and given the previously allocated funding has been public knowledge for several years, why was this reduction not managed and notified well in advance;
(6) Who advised the community organisations of the impending permanent or temporary cessation of their Roving Tutor services last June;
(7) Is the Roving Tutor service planned to be cut again so that delivery levels in the second half of the 2004-05 financial year will be less than a third of that applying a year ago; if so, please provide details of funds (a) allocated and (b) spent on the Roving Tutor scheme in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 financial years and (c) the total service delivery hours for each of those years;
(8) Has the Government measured the success of the Roving Tutor Program; if not, why not; if so, please provide details of the findings;
(9) Why has the initial expansion of the scheme in the 2002-03 financial year been reversed to its current level of less than a third of the recommended expanded level given (a) the government initiated report entitled Bridging the Digital Divide: a study into connectivity issues for disadvantaged people recommended expansion of the Roving Tutor scheme, (b) the popularity of the scheme, (c) its success as measured by the community and (d) the obvious continuing demand;
(10) Was the level of service provided in the 2001-02 and 2002-03 financial years justified; if so, what has changed to justify the current reductions;
(11) What extra funding in financial year 2004-05 would have been required to enable the Roving Tutor scheme to continue at the same level as the previous year;
(12) Is the significant previously unspent funds planned to be expended this year on the provision of second hand computers to community organisations; if so, can he state what cost/benefit studies have been done to justify this expenditure versus maintaining the Roving Tutor scheme at previous levels and/or providing much needed IT support and assistance to many of the same community organisations;
(13) What is the breakdown of actual and planned expenditure on Digital Divide programs for the current financial year;
(14) Why are schools not currently being used as venues for Roving Tutor training given that they have existing IT infrastructure, IT maintenance support services and administration facilities and do not require provision of new IT equipment to be effective;
(15) What is the breakdown, to individual programmes or initiatives, of funds that have been spent on providing Digital Divide services through A.C.T. schools;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .