Page 3871 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Sydney to undertake a four-year bachelor of building and construction project management. They are now reapplying to universities in Sydney and Melbourne because, in their own words, “We don’t want to study for a degree at an institution that lands up as a glorified TAFE.”
That may be far from what would happen, but that is the perception. I am sure there is just as much angst among potential CIT students who do not want the time and the cost of a university degree and studying at a campus that makes them feel like second-class citizens. Again, they are just perceptions but it is these sorts of attitudes that drive enrolments.
A merger may be the absolute best outcome for the future of tertiary education in Canberra. It may be the worst. We simply do not know enough and, given the poor record of this minister in getting things right, we need to ensure the decision is given every scrutiny this Assembly can offer.
I therefore propose the motion I have circulated. It is the most appropriate scrutiny we as legislators can offer and gives those closely involved in tertiary education in Canberra a chance to speak openly to express their views. In the minister’s own words:
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.
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
MR DOSZPOT: I will continue from there. Let us start getting that theory into practice with open scrutiny. I commend the motion that is in my name.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (11.16): I thank the shadow minister for bringing forward the motion. It is one of the rare occasions when he has spoken in this area and I welcome his contribution.
In his motion, Mr Doszpot asks the Assembly to note a number of points, some of which are not particularly clear. He suggests that the Bradley review is the third review in the last 12 months involving the Canberra Institute of Technology and the University of Canberra. In his speech he did go on to elaborate that he was referring to reports by the ACT Tertiary Taskforce and the review of the ACT public service by Dr Allan Hawke. I think he got to the point where he recognised, though, that those particular pieces of work were not specifically about the University of Canberra and CIT, although they did make recommendations in that area and made recommendations particularly around further work needing to be undertaken.
I commissioned the ACT Tertiary Taskforce some time ago to consult on the future of the tertiary education landscape more generally. As Mr Doszpot I think accurately
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video