Page 3867 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(2) refers to the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs all matters relating to current and potential options for the future of the Canberra Institute of Technology and the University of Canberra, including, but not limited to:

(a) closer collaboration, merger and in the case of CIT, financial independence;

(b) the current operating structures of both the Canberra Institute of Technology and the University of Canberra;

(d) the financial implications of all options for both the ACT Government and potential students of both institutions;

(e) examination of all current CIT articulations and their success in attracting students;

(f) any other matter relevant to the issue; and

(g) to report back to the Assembly by the first sitting week of 2012.

I move this motion today out of a sense of frustration. We have heard much chatter in the past few weeks about the government’s decision to merge the Canberra Institute of Technology and the Canberra University. To contemplate the merger of two major educational institutions in any city is a major step and is one that should not be taken lightly. To make such a move in a city the size of Canberra where we have four universities and one TAFE is fraught with risk and ought not to be considered without serious scrutiny of the financial, educational, demographic and social implications of such a merger and consultation with all stakeholders.

But in the typical media-driven style of this government, and most particularly this minister, we have had none of the above. Minister Barr will no doubt claim he has done all of those things. He will point to the fact there have been three reports on this subject, and that is true, but if we examine the recent history of this development, variously referred to as an arranged marriage between reluctant partners, a takeover and high handed, we have had three reports, or at least reports of three reports, but certainly little discussion and scrutiny.

Let us examine the recent history of discussions surrounding CIT and UC. First we had the ACT tertiary task force in 2010. It had a large membership, with representatives of industry, education, professionals and government—30 individuals from 20 institutions, departments, councils and unions. It received or sought opinions from 85 organisations. The tertiary task force met for six months from May to November 2010 to progress its agenda and to consider the outcomes of consultation meetings with stakeholders.

The task force delivered its report Learning Capital, with 12 recommendations, which the minister launched in February 2011. The task force suggested:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video