Page 1402 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I then saw similar media from the University of Canberra that seemed to suggest that the processes of creating a collaborative venture between the CIT and the University of Canberra were, perhaps from the university’s point of view, more advanced than the government’s. It is exactly this kind of mixed message that is creating undue stress and anxiety in the local education sector and leads me to move this motion this morning.
The University of Canberra says that it and the ACT government are to establish an entirely new third institution. The ACT government, on the other hand, in their response to a question on notice which I received on Monday of this week, says:
The intention has never been to create a third tertiary education institution.
The ACT government says there is little in the way of a concrete model and that much work is yet to be done between all parties, including the commonwealth. They also stated in writing on 26 March:
The concept of further collaboration between UC and CIT is the product of significant and ongoing work.
The University of Canberra again appear to be more advanced in their thinking, as they are talking openly about a 2013 start date. The UC have also apparently found a home for their “University of Canberra Institute of Technology”, and, according to their website, the new UCIT will have its headquarters on the UC campus in Bruce. There are other examples of mixed or confusing messages, and I urge anyone here interested to do quick comparisons of all the available information—basically, that is the existing media releases.
Minister Bourke should not be surprised to see this motion today, as I and my office have repeatedly asked both formal and informal questions and passed on constituent concerns to his office. Despite our sincere desire to work in good faith with the government on this issue, we have not to date had satisfactory answers to the questions we have raised.
The Australian Education Union and the National Tertiary Education Union have both publicly raised concerns and I am given to understand that they have had similar experiences—that is, they have had unsatisfactory briefings that have just been focused on a media release. There have been public statements about a new model for delivering AQF5 and 6, which equates to diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. This model bears very little relationship to any of the three recommendations from Professor Denise Bradley in her report entitled Report on options for future collaborations of Canberra Institute of Technology and University of Canberra.
If, in fact, upon consideration of all the many complex factors and in line with messages received from stakeholders during consultations, the government discovered that Professor Bradley’s recommendations were not appropriate, I can understand why a new way was chosen. What I am struggling to understand, however, is how the ACT government can come to a point of view in December 2011 and yet fail to explain to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video