Page 974 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
enormous energy, strength and vision. I, for one, intend to fully support Professor Parker, his council and the University of Canberra in realising the vision and the plans they have been developing and articulating for that particular campus.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (3.53): I thank the adjunct professor for bringing this issue forward. It is true, and Mr Mulcahy said in his speech, that, when it falls to a member of the crossbench to reveal a financial problem, it raises questions. We are, of course, referring to the Canberra Times article of 7 August last year, which started to go into some of these issues.
It is, of course, of some concern to all MLAs to read the news that the University of Canberra has recorded a significant deficit of almost $16 million. This represents a large amount relative to the university budget. For example, the latest published financial statements for 2006 show that the annual income of the university is around $130 million. So we are talking about a deficit of over 10 per cent of annual income.
I do understand many of the concerns that Mr Mulcahy raised but I do think it is somewhat precipitate to launch into a spray on the issue. The annual report for the year ended 31 December 2007 is not yet completed, and it would be proper for that reporting to be complete and all the facts to be before us before we start shooting from the hip. I would have thought that the proper approach would be to ascertain the full facts once the annual report is finalised, both through question time and through the estimates committee process which is just around the corner.
It is important to put on the public record that I met with Vice-Chancellor Professor Stephen Parker about a month ago, and I have been broadly aware of the prospect of a loss in the preceding 12 months. I did not rush to the media in an attempt to make political capital. I am disappointed that, when my office contacted the vice-chancellor today to advise him of the matter of public importance, he was not aware of it.
It is important to understand that, when institutions are dragged through the media, many in the public just see the headlines. An article in the Canberra Times today is headed “‘Blunders’ to blame for $16m UC deficit”. It is important to understand the impact that negative publicity can have on enrolments and on the public standing of the university. So we need to be very clear about what has caused these issues. Questions do need to be asked and it is proper that the Assembly should debate this issue. But we should get ourselves fully informed before we start going into the details. We should actually go into the details before quoting the figures.
I do not want to comment critically on the University of Canberra management. I believe that some of the changes that have been made are positive and that Professor Stephen Parker is making some positive changes. I believe it is extremely important that Canberra has a strong second university—one which has significant strengths and points of differentiation and which can build a reputation for excellence both nationally and internationally. The ANU is an older competitor which, for 50 years, has been specifically funded for research. ANU is a local gem and we are all very proud of it.
UC is emerging in its own right as a differentiated competitor. It, too, stands among our country’s top universities. The Good Universities Guide has given five stars to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .