Page 3872 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reflected in his speech, it did consult widely with stakeholders across government and industry, and with education providers, in preparing the final report that was launched in February 2010. The Hawke review into the entire ACT public service provided its report in late 2010. While both reports had remits well beyond UC and CIT, they did make some recommendations relevant to the institutions. The task force recommended closer collaboration, while the Hawke review recommended amalgamation.
There is no doubt that, outside this consultation process and what has been occurring locally, the tertiary education landscape nationally is changing. It is being driven by the changing needs of students and of industry. It is being driven by the federal government. And it is, I am pleased to say, being embraced by all state and territory governments—even those, I would remind Mr Doszpot, of the same political persuasion as his party. Just last week, COAG again stressed that fundamental reform of tertiary education is required to increase participation and to ensure that it is more responsive to the needs of industry and individuals. I would advise the shadow minister to perhaps spend some time consulting with his state and territory colleagues, who are also pursuing these reforms, although I note that he is not even staying in the chamber for the debate.
This government have a proud record of reform in education. We will continue to work to improve all areas of the sector, to make sure that the needs of students, the community and the economy are met into the future.
The architect of the national tertiary education reforms has looked at the ACT system and has found that the status quo for the CIT and UC is not an option. On this, the government agrees with Professor Bradley. This is an important matter. The landscape is changing rapidly. We do need to move on this, but move carefully, to ensure that the University of Canberra and the CIT are not left behind. And this is exactly how we are proceeding. I imagine that if the government had decided that no, we will just ignore what is occurring nationally and ignore what is occurring in other jurisdictions, Mr Doszpot, probably six to 12 months later, maybe even two years later, would get up in this place and say, “The government should have responded then; it has been too slow.”
Instead, what we have heard this morning is that we are moving too quickly on this process. It probably is too quickly for the shadow minister. I am prepared to accept that. It is clear from his comments this morning that he is in desperate need of some further briefing on the national reform agenda in higher education and in vocational education and training. I think it is my public duty to provide that information to him and to provide the opportunity for him to meet with some people in the sector who are grappling with this issue now. I certainly think that it will be important for Mr Doszpot to come up to speed pretty quickly if he is going to be able to engage constructively in this debate.
As I said earlier, we have had the architect of the national reform agenda, Professor Denise Bradley, review our local institutions. I might add that she has worked diligently to meet her terms of reference, despite the insinuations of the shadow minister. We now have firm proposals from Professor Bradley to model, and these are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video