Page 3176 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
council will be a valuable benefit to the CIT. I think this is good news for the territory and for industry, and for all other users of people who develop their skills at the CIT.
I would also note that the bill makes some changes to the process of reviewing certain decisions that can be made by the director. The provisions of new part 9 set out the types of decisions that can be subject of review and the processes that are involved in facilitating any review. The particular matters that are subject to review are decisions concerning a refusal to admit a person to a course of study or to an examination and a refusal to confer an award. The changes made to the matter of reviewable decisions appear to be sensible, and we will support the bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.21): Please tell me if I am repeating myself. I am hesitant in my support of the CIT amendment bill, as I do not believe the impact of the proposed changes has been adequately qualified or explained by the ACT government. It appears that the objective of the bill is to strengthen industry representation on the CIT Advisory Council, to encourage CIT educational content that is more relevant to the market, and to encourage pathways for students between education and employment. The ACT government is proposing that seven of the 12 council members, rather than one, represent key industry sectors in the ACT. The three representatives from staff, students and vocational education and training remain unchanged. The council will, however, be losing four members who have expertise relevant to the management and operation of the institute.
Looking at recent composition of the council, there appear to be five members who may lose their positions as, from what my office knows of them, they will not meet the new criteria. These members include Dr Sarah Ryan, chair of the committee and a coordinator of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission; Ms Catherine Clynes, a community representative; Roslyn Brown an indigenous aged care researcher; Ms Rebecca Cross, the public sector representative from DET; and Mr Paul Dugdale, the ACT’s Chief Health Officer.
In changing the composition of the council, we must consider what impact this will have on the council’s ability to undertake its function, as set out in clause 29 of the CIT act. Three of the council’s functions relate to CIT’s educational content and services, community relationships and its financial position. I am sure that the six industry reps will have much to contribute in these areas. But I am concerned about the function which requires that the council advise the Minister for Education and Training on the welfare of students at the institute. How can the addition of six industry reps provide better advice on student welfare or community development? Yes, they can talk about students’ future employment and training, but I doubt that they are capable of advising on the most appropriate academic setting, student services and extracurricular activity in which student welfare is catered for. Surely this is where community and academic experts have greater value, and I am disappointed that many members of the council who can best contribute to this area will be lost.
It seems that seven out of the 12 council members have industry as a priority, and only five of the 12 have the academic setting at heart. If it comes down to a vote, the seven industry representatives will win over the remaining five. But, of course, we hope the council will never get to the position where such a vote would occur. I would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .