Page 1085 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ease and speed and convenience will take precedence and that advice will be sought from friends rather than critics.
The other key issue here is operation of the national protocols for higher education approval processes. While it is probably inevitable that the ACT will simply incorporate them, the National Tertiary Education Union has articulated some common concerns about the protocols themselves and questioned the lack of public scrutiny for applications for university approval. The union argues that the protocols will in effect support a race to the bottom on many occasions and that a broader range of institutions such as university colleges and a lower bar when it comes to research requirements all add to the risk of falling university standards.
In this context we should not underestimate the impact over time of international trade agreements, such as the general agreement on trade in services that Australia has signed up to, that now include services such as education. The bilateral United States free trade agreement is one that is likely to have a significant impact on our higher education sector, and it is an impact that I would at least monitor. Mooted agreements with China and other large economies in our area may well do the same. In this context the protection of the quality and reputation of Australia’s post-secondary education industry is of vital importance, and I cannot see how any of these concerns were considered in the drafting of this bill.
I note the response from the education minister to concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. The authority to enter premises is a vexed issue, although I accept the higher level of responsibility as it applies to apprentices and other young people in training. As to the other point, I would have thought it would not have been beyond the capacity of the minister, the department and parliamentary counsel to have added a note about common law privileges rather than simply acknowledging in the letter that it is probably a good idea.
That comment, however, is perhaps the first item on a list for later amendments, which I presume the minister is already putting together. In that context could I suggest that he or his office also look at adding a degree of public scrutiny to new approvals and a commitment to some general public engagement on the annual VET priorities, given that they will be likely to be developed otherwise more in-house.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.18), in reply: I thank members for their support of the bill. Both Mrs Dunne and Dr Foskey have drawn attention to the fact that the bill streamlines all the administrative aspects of vocational education and training: policy, service delivery, industry input, accreditation and registration. It is fair to say that a lot of costly duplication of effort has been eliminated. My advice is that the savings achieved from this change are in the order of $430,000 per annum.
Mrs Dunne made reference to the Skills Commission taking up a whole of government approach to providing skills advice in the ACT. I think it is clear that with the establishment of the Skills Commission and the abolition of VETA the department and the government will continue to source VET-specific advice and will need a VET advisory group. We will establish one that will engage regularly in a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .