Page 3877 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
appropriate time when we understand what it is that needs to be inquired into and looked at.
In the meantime, I look forward to regular progress reports from the minister about how the process is proceeding. I will be keeping in contact with stakeholders about their experiences in engaging with that steering group. And it is important, as I said, that we have scrutiny involvement from this Assembly. I believe my amendments will improve and put a proper focus on the intention that I think Mr Doszpot was putting forward to the house this morning.
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (11.35): I would like to speak to the amendment just put forward by Ms Hunter. I must say that I am very disappointed that the Greens have taken the attitude of not supporting our original motion. I am very disappointed from a number of points of view, but primarily from the fact that this party, the Greens, came into being on the basis of keeping this government accountable. Basically all we see is a rubber-stamping of whatever this government puts forward, and this is another example of that.
Mr Barr tells us that this is a fast-moving debate and Ms Hunter also took the cue from that and that we have to move on. “Fast moving” does not mean compromising on quality and accountability. We do not compromise on accountability and quality, but apparently some people would prefer to, and I am very disappointed the Greens have taken that point of view.
In discussions with Ms Hunter, she asked the question whether I had spoken to some of our constituent base. I have spoken to quite a number. Indeed, today I have had very strong representation from the Australian Education Union to support the recommendations we are making and to ensure that we make a strong case for the issues to be referred to the standing committee and for all the points outlined in my motion—the need closer collaboration, looking at the merger in the case of the CIT, financial independence of the current operating structures of both the Canberra Institute of Technology and the University of Canberra, and a whole host of items that are listed within my motion.
Ms Hunter made the point that I had not covered the educational aspects. Certainly I covered that in my speech that I delivered, that the determination of whether there is a clear evidence to support that the ACT VET stakeholders, including students, teachers and administrative staff and business, would benefit educationally from any option for the future of CIT and the University of Canberra. The point is, Ms Hunter, that if you felt that was such an oversight on my part, I would really appreciate an amendment that carried that from you. I would totally back that amendment. So if you want to make that, I would certainly add that recommendation should you wish to accept it.
Overall, the purpose of this inquiry is to inform into the merger proposal, not just to inquire into the eventual proposed model and supporting bill, which is what the Greens’ amendment is wanting. It is instructive to know that the government will vote for Ms Hunter’s amendment, because it obviously suits the agenda that Mr Barr has. Mr Barr criticises me for criticising him. It is not on a personal level, Mr Barr, just on your reputation of the way these historical events have taken place. The schools closure—“trust us, trust us; we’re negotiating”. At that very time that consultations
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video