Page 1437 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (3.34), by leave: I move:
In subparagraph (2)(a), after “CIT”, insert the following words: “including, but not limited to:
“(i) the financial implications of all options for both institutions; and
(ii) the financial implications of all options for both the ACT Government and potential students of both institutions;”.
These amendments add to the motion that Ms Hunter already has before us.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (3.35): I think there are some practical challenges in relation to the way this amendment is worded—“all options for potential students of both institutions” does then mean, Mr Doszpot, the need to model the announcements that have been made by the Prime Minister in relation to VET diploma students having the same rights as university students in relation to a HECS-style scheme.
We need to be clear about what is expected. Treasury will be undertaking obviously some detailed financial modelling in relation to those issues that impact on the ACT government. As to the “potential students of both institutions”, there are questions about the context. For example, the entitlement to certificate III level training is an entitlement financed by the federal government. Obviously some courses provided by CIT would qualify for that level of support. There is then the question of the varying ways that students would then be able to undertake their studies and whether in fact they would access this new commonwealth funding scheme—that is, the extension of HECS into the VET sector. There could be myriad different financial implications for students. I think it is a very tricky one to require Treasury to report on on 1 May given that COAG will be meeting on 13 April.
The question then is, of course, what the commonwealth do if some jurisdictions do not agree at COAG on the 13th. I know they have made some comments to the effect that they will just redistribute the funding to those jurisdictions that do agree, so that will be a fairly strong incentive for jurisdictions to sign up. But we do not know that, so we will not know the implications necessarily on 13 April. I imagine there will not be any jurisdictions that will walk away from the COAG table on that day, saying, “No, we won’t be part of this.” It will take some time before—
Mr Doszpot: We’re talking about 1 May, Mr Barr.
MR BARR: So you are going to guarantee to me that within two weeks the New South Wales government, the Victorian government, the Queensland government and the Western Australian government will give a clear position on whether they are in or out, even though they have not yet given that position in four or five years of discussion. Victoria and Western Australia have refused to be part of the national accreditation process in relation to VET regulation. That occurred when there were state Labor governments and has continued with state conservative governments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video