Page 4771 - Week 11 - Thursday, 20 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reflect this position. Ms Hunter will speak to the amendment and explain the reasons for the revised position. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 4 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MS BRESNAN: I move:
(1) Omit subparagraph (1)(b), substitute:
“(b) the report made three recommendations, the preferred option being that the UC and CIT merge to create a new dual sector tertiary institution;”.
(2) In subparagraph (1)(c), omit “closes”, substitute “closed”.
(3) Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) table in the Assembly a formal response to the Bradley Report; and
(b) provide the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs with all relevant material used in the formulation of the Government response;”.
(4) Omit paragraph (3), substitute:
“(3) on tabling of the Government response, refers to the Standing Committee on Education, Training and Youth Affairs for inquiry and report:
(a) the Government response; and
(b) any other relevant matter concerning the future of the Canberra Institute of Technology and the University of Canberra.”.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (3.58): The Greens have revised our position on this issue for a number of reasons. Firstly, the level of interest and concern by many within the education sector justifies a faster public consideration of this issue. Merging the University of Canberra and CIT would be a very significant step and reform if it were to take place, and it certainly is not something that we should enter into lightly. Equally, it is an issue that does require as timely a response as possible. I say that in the context of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the process and have their point of view heard.
The committee process will achieve this, and it is appropriate that the process commence as soon as it is reasonably possible. The revised time line does bring the inquiry forward, and there are a number of benefits to this. There was a concern in the community that waiting until a bill was tabled may be too late in the process. The amendment seeks to address that concern so that those affected can participate earlier in the process before they feel that a particular course of action has been committed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video