Page 979 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is an institution with a new and internationally regarded vice-chancellor in Professor Stephen Parker. Following Professor Parker’s appointment, it is an institution with a very strong strategic direction and a bright future. I must say that Professor Parker’s talent as an administrator and his passion for the future of the university has become obvious not only to me, as education minister, but I think to all members of this place and everyone who has had the opportunity to engage with him over the future of the institution.
As the Chief Minister indicated—other speakers have touched on it—the university faces a unique range of circumstances. In 2007, it had approximately the same number of students as were enrolled in 2002. However, as we have discussed, those students were studying fewer units. That has resulted in significantly reduced revenues from the commonwealth.
Because of this, and because of the flattening of student study levels, the university has had to make some significant adjustments. This goes back to last year. There was considerable media attention at the time, so I accept Mr Seselja’s point that this is not something that Mr Mulcahy has unveiled in the last week. This was the subject of some considerable attention through last year.
Following a series of briefings with the new vice-chancellor, and just prior to him making the major structural reform announcements that he did, I recall some conjecture on the local ABC radio. I recall being interviewed on these issues and being asked to oppose the sorts of reforms that Professor Parker was outlining. At that point, I made it clear that the government supported the changes that Professor Parker was proposing, and our support continues.
Mr Mulcahy: When did you report here, though?
MR BARR: Comments were made in the public arena and part of the general political debate of this town, in addition to the usual reporting processes of the university through its annual report and a range of other avenues. One would presume that the considerable media attention last year on a number of occasions and comments I made at that point would suggest that this was something that the government was engaged in.
When considering matters of university governance, there are always questions about just how far governments and ministers should go in terms of seeking to micromanage the day-to-day operations of a university. One need only look at some of the criticisms of previous federal education ministers who have sought to dictate personal preferences around aspects of university administration and just how poorly they have been received by those educational institutions.
As education minister, I do not propose to begin a process of micromanaging the activities of the University of Canberra. There is an appropriate level of accountability under the act and there is an appropriate level of interest, as indicated by today’s debate and by the opportunities that all members have to ask questions in relation to the university. I continue to have regular meetings with the vice-chancellor and, through the education and training portfolio, the planning portfolio and the sport and recreation and tourism portfolios, I have very strong and consistent links with the university across that range of areas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .