Page 3869 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
• Explore and report to Government on the opportunities for formal collaboration between UC and CIT, including amalgamation;
• Assess these opportunities against the vision, goals and principles contained in the Federal Government’s review of higher education;
• Assess how the VET sector can be strengthened to meet the needs of the ACT, including strengthening VET in schools; and
• Recommend to the Government the preferred arrangements/model to achieve these objectives.
He went on to say in that same speech that he welcomed this discussion because a well-considered response to these issues needs to be developed and the process should not be rushed. He said:
Ensuring high-quality education and training whilst at the same time improving integration within the ACT Tertiary sector requires careful consideration, not only in theory but also in practice.
As we now know, this is the Bradley review, the extensive, not to be rushed process that gave Professor Bradley six weeks to come up with the set answers. She said she did not meet with the task force. Indeed, she noted it was a rather large group. She further indicated that had she known there had been such a report, she might not have taken on the commission. It might well have been prudent for her to meet with the task force. After all, there were 30 individuals all closely involved in and thoroughly conversant with both CIT and UC and the context and locality in which they operate. They had sat for six months to come up with their suggestion of closer collaboration.
Professor Bradley sat on her own, spoke, by her own admission, to very few people, did not consider or seek any financial analysis and in six weeks came up with the answer that presumably the government wanted. Why else would you have a six-month long inquiry involving 30 people and submissions from over 80 organisations, have no discussion on its recommendations, form a council to give every appearance of meeting at least one of their recommendations and then present the council with the fait accompli, a merger?
What was the response? The minister announced a government strategy group to consider the options and report back by November. So the poor Learning Capital Council had barely time to have a meeting before it appeared to be gazumped by a government strategy group.
What did CIT or the University of Canberra say? It depends on whether you mean published or unpublished comments. Media reports suggest, and Professor Bradley acknowledges, there was an unpublished report by the CIT advisory board arguing against any merger. CIT staff are apparently not opposed to consideration of a merger but are concerned at the potential for the CIT’s vocational role to be downgraded. So too is vocational education expert Leesa Wheelahan who said that while the recommendations made perfect sense, given the university’s dominant culture, status
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video